Current solar cycle data seems to be past the peak

The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it appears as if the slow downside from what looks like the solar max for cycle 24. Though, it is still possible we could see a second small peak like is visible at the upper left in cycle 23.

Latest Sunspot number prediction

The 10.7cm radio flux continues downward:

Latest F10.7 cm flux number prediction

The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, being at the same value as it was in November 2006. We’ve had over 6 years now of a lower than expected (for solar max) Ap index.

Latest Planetary A-index number prediction

From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles:

solar_region_count

Another indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has happened.

Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.

More at the WUWT Solar reference page.

In other news, Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 4/1/13. Perhaps he thinks a double peak might be in the cards:

ssn_predict.gif (2208 bytes)The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

========================================================

UPDATE: From: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80572

Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”

About these ads

239 thoughts on “Current solar cycle data seems to be past the peak

  1. It is interesting that both of the last 2 cycles have had somewhat of a double peak.
    Reason to believe this cycle will too ?? Based on the last cycles as analogs, I would think a second peak would be similar in amplitude to the first.

  2. To talk about a ‘double peak’ is somewhat nonsensical. There are many peaks. By choosing a progressively longer smoothing window you can get your choice of number of peaks: 10,…,6,5,4,3,2,1

    REPLY: True, but I’m referring to what the current smoothing visual is. Plus NASA agrees about the double peak idea:

    Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80572

    - Anthony

  3. Actually it is looking very good if you are a Solar Physicist or an amateur watcher this is a great time. If a grand minimum is here the sun will let us see other thing that are happening and give a much more on how things work.

    Jim Arndt

  4. van Loon says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:14 am
    Don’t ignore its importance for the climate
    There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.

  5. Leif-

    This is the first cycle ever with a Livingston and Penn effect, I coubt it will look like the multi-peaked 14. It will also be about 11 years in length, just really weak.

    Maunder minimum coming? Buy parkas?

  6. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:19 am
    REPLY: True, but I’m referring to what the current smoothing visual is. Plus NASA agrees about the double peak idea: Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
    cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

    Pesnell is dead wrong.

    REPLY: Care to explain why? – Anthony

  7. Brad says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:22 am
    This is the first cycle ever with a Livingston and Penn effect, I doubt it will look like the multi-peaked 14.
    I think there were several cycle with an L&P effect in the 17th century…
    ‘doubt’ has to based on something to be valid.

  8. Well, as a northern guy myself, at last we get the chance to see what white skin color is made for.

    Winter, that is.

  9. Brad says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:23 am
    Sorry, first cycle WITH MODERN INSTRUMENTS studying it that has an L&P Effect *
    Sunspots are even TODAY [deliberately] counted with small telescopes like were used centuries ago.

  10. Professor S. writes: “There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.”

    And yet, even a quick look at the solar record seems to show a good correlation between deep solar minima (is “deep” the word I’m looking for?) and lower global temps.

    Coincidental? Or perhaps the charts are wrong?

  11. Leif, Apparently you are not familiar with the meteorological literature. There have been several papers in recent years demonstrating the solar influence. Laes dem.

  12. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:24 am
    Pesnell is dead wrong.
    REPLY: Care to explain why? – Anthony

    The correct statement he should have made is “solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks”.

  13. Now we need a way to find out if and who is applying fro Goverment grants to study the sun and how it is the cause for “Huge New Global Warming Problems From Sun Activity”.

    I would “grant” some are about this now to keep the money flowing.

  14. Leif, you don know how sun affects climate, nobody knows. You say: dont worry, like a priest, because you believe it like some priest’s believe in bible. While you dont really know, why you cant say so. There is lot of hypothesis how sun affects climate and test has begun.

  15. The Sun still made a lot of nice Northern Lights the last few years.. Has been great for those hunting the lights and like to take pictures and time lapses… Learn how to in our new book that may fascinate many of you…

  16. With no underlying understanding of how the Sun actually works [They say Solar Physics is settled], NOAA is using past statistical analysis to make future projections, i.e., the double peak.

    After revising Cycle 24 [ it was to be the largest 'ever'], downward 6 times, why should we give any credence to them. They have failed with a grade of “F”.

    When we have ‘Zero Sun Spots’, lets call that the Sun’s base output. The Solar Cycles are then the variable increase over the base Solar output. It is this variable increase that has warmed the Earth since 1650 until now! Take the area under the Solar Cycle curves as the variable amount of Solar energy. Compare the other Solar Cycles to 24. The Sun is only delivering 1/10 of the energy of the average of the Cycles after 1900.

    In 1650, the Global temperature was down 1.5C to 2.0C depending of what reconstruction you use. Make your own projections of Global temperature!!! Ignore “TSI”, it does not correlate to the energy absorbed by the Earth any translate into temperature.

  17. Green Sand says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:35 am
    Leif, is there any reason why the data appears to have less “noise” than the previous cycles?
    Is it actually happening or have data gathering techniques changed/improved?

    The blue curve is data from Mount Wilson Observatory http://obs.astro.ucla.edu/intro.html and they actually did upgrade and improve the instrument in 1982, which explains the decrease of the noise. The Wilcox Solar Observatory http://wso.stanford.edu/ [red curve] uses the same instrument and procedures throughout.

    van Loon says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
    Leif, Apparently you are not familiar with the meteorological literature. There have been several papers in recent years demonstrating the solar influence.
    I have read about 1000 such papers going back to 1651. The latest one is http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf
    “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds” Since the cosmic ray flux is strongly correlated with solar activity you may draw your own conclusions.

  18. Leif said “I think there were several cycle with an L&P effect in the 17th century…
    ‘doubt’ has to based on something to be valid.”

    As I stated, this is the first to be studied with modern instruments. Although sunspots themselves were viewed with small telescopes, they did not analyze the umbral field as you post on your own website: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

    What does this mean? We are both speculating on the L&P effect in the 17th Century. We are not speculating now.

    I would add that your 0.1C “proof” that sun does not cause cooling/warming has the same uncertainty effects scores around it that we complain so much about in IPCC and Marcott papers…just sayin’ It is based on the solar output, it is not based on add on effects possible from that output and changes in wavelength from the sun which could significantly increase the effect via clouds, water vapor, rain etc.

    In the words of the not very sagely or appropriate Game of Thrones, “Winter is coming” if the minimum arrives, methinks.

    My guess is only slightly less informed than yours as we no so little about the sun.

  19. Olavi says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:48 am
    While you dont really know, why you cant say so.
    There is data [some good, most not so good] showing us how climate and the Sun has varied and they don’r agree very well, so that is why. [see below for a Fihure]

    Bart van Deenen says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:44 am
    we see a very strong correlation between earths climate and Be-10 isotope concentrations
    Slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf shows the correlation. It doesn’t look too hot to me.

  20. Another peak mid December 2013 W@ smoothed 55, dropping off March 2014, minimal @ 10 mid 2016. Very quiet.

  21. This has been a solar minimum from the “Get-Go.” Joseph D’Aleo predicted it a long time ago. If one studies the NASA predictions for this cycle, they have had to constantly change and adjust.

    Solar minimums come with a twin. As of now, all minimum cycles have one peak.

    Our governments, science Pros and such have been less in tuned to sunspot activity for about 130 years. At one time, scientists once considered it natural law that sunspot activity affected our hurricane activity, temperatures and precipitation.

    This is now left to amateurs and Easterbrook types. How we have fallen down the ladder of science. 2+2 now =5.

    We are in a solar minimum that will have lasting effects through 2035 with climate lag. We will continue to have our drought due to the lost of upper level atmosphere. We will have smaller and shorter hurricane seasons and maybe a zero hurricane season now and then. We will have longer winters and winters without summers. We already have crop loses that are affecting our food exports.

    Have you notice a climb in the use of horse meat. Why waste our highly bred beef stock on buffets?

    Have you noted the closing of Nuclear Energy Plants and the postpone closure of those that are open. We have shut down northern damn energy plants and breached the dams so kayaks have a better run. Now, the present administration is making it impossible to open a coal burning plant.

    A nice formula for disaster.

    You might want to look up the number of winter deaths that the British elderly have suffered for they couldn’t afford a warm room in their flat.

    The minimum is here. The thinning of the herd has begun.

    Paul Pierett

  22. Brad says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:59 am
    It is based on the solar output, it is not based on add on effects possible from that output and changes in wavelength from the sun which could significantly increase the effect via clouds, water vapor, rain etc.
    Lots of speculation there. To first order the solar output would be expected to be the dominant driver. There does not seem to be good evidence for solar influence on clouds: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf
    “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”

  23. Lets start a pool on the solar minimum. I say it is going to be earlier than expected.

    04-2020

    I am double insulating my home, looking for farmland in Georgia

  24. Leif,

    But isn’t plotting [North - South] misleading while both poles are the same polarity? Perhaps this is a better way of looking at it: http://postimg.org/image/5pryalocn/full

    If not, please explain where I’m going astray. On this basis it looks like it’ll be some time before South finally flips and that we have a slow drawn out process in progress. David Hathaway’s magfly diagram seems to suggest the same thing: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg

    I don’t see any grounds for claiming there will or won’t be a second peak or for assuming the current cycle will behave like others in the past. Just seems like speculation to me.

  25. Is the “double peak” a real thing or a post hoc justification for a completely erroneous forecast?

  26. Professor Svalgaard, Really appreciate your contribution to these solar threads. Of course I hope you’re right about solar minima and climate, otherwise it will likely be a very different world if damaging cooling sets in. How many years would you say, before we know if you’re correct or not (assuming we do find ourselves in a Maunder or Dalton type minimum)?

  27. Every time I look at those charts it reminds me of something else given up for dead. First Solar stock chart progression looks so similar to me. So FSLR has popped 43% today. The solar activity is due to pop now… Or bust my bubble…if it won’t. :-)

  28. van Loon says:
    April 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
    Thank you, I expected an answer like that.
    The important thing is if you took the answer to heart and learned something from it?

  29. Here is a totally politically incorrect analogy, which under no circumstances you should experiment with:
    Assume you are the sun.
    Assume teenage vandal scratching your car is the earth.
    You are much bigger and stronger and slap the kid across the face; temperature of his cheek goes up, due to enhanced blood circulation.
    If you hit a tailor’s dummy nothing would happen, but a living being responds.
    Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms, ocean currents (the earth’s surface blood stream) react ( indirectly ) and combination of two results in the natural temperature oscillations.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

  30. AJB says:
    April 9, 2013 at 11:42 am
    But isn’t plotting [North - South] misleading while both poles are the same polarity? Perhaps this is a better way of looking at it: http://postimg.org/image/5pryalocn/full
    Yes, it is a bit ‘misleading’ [depending on the purpose]. Another one of my plots [resembling yours] is http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
    The two hemispheres are often out of step, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202012%20SH12A-07.pdf
    The difference N-S is often used as a simple indicator of the solar ‘dipole moment’ which seems to be important for the solar cycle, hence the purpose of plotting that in this connection.

  31. Brad says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    Leif, what about this?

    http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4348-9_4#page-1

    It says: “further studies will be possible that should help to quantify the overall effect of cosmic rays on the Earth environment and, particularly, climate” so it seems we are not there yet…

    vukcevic says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms, ocean currents
    The sun does not hit the Earth with ocean currents.

  32. based on my tables

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    we will drop drop in temps. by a bit more than 0.1 degree C

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    looks to me by about 0.3 or 0.4 until 2020….
    (because earth’s energy reserves are a bit depleted now, so we will fall by as much as maxima are falling)
    indeed, it will not stop cooling until 2036 + some lag after that.

    Have a happy cooling off time.
    (my advice: don’t invest in the arctic or the antarctic or at high latitudes)

  33. I saw the Southern Lights at the peak of Cycle 22, it was truly amazing. A curtain spanning half the sky, much like a real curtain suspended by rings from a rod, the folds of the curtain would open and close much as if you were sliding the rings together or apart. When two rings met at the top there would be a flashes of light there which illuminated that bit of curtain brighter. The curtain shimmered, moved, sparkled. I and my then-wife watched for an hour, transfixed. The following night there was another such show — lit the night for hours. I have not seen the like since.

  34. My countryman Professor Svalgaard holds his own, but from Slide 19

    http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf

    I note a comment
    “During the Maunder Minimum the
    modulation of Cosmic Rays was
    strong and healthy, but almost no
    sunspots were observed. The reason
    for this is not known, but there are
    tantalizing hints that such a situation
    may arise in the next few decades.”
    So presumably Dr Svalgaard would not deny that a dearth of sunspots could lead to a period of a colder Earth. On the other hand, the statement denies a connection between Cosmic Rays and temperature or rather stronger Cosmic Rays do not lead to lower global temperatures.

  35. lsvalgaard: You cut off his quoteat the ‘//’ mark (mine): “Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms, ocean currents // (the earth’s surface blood stream) react …”

    Not saying the original analogy is correct, but the ocean currents react to the solar storms.

  36. What is continually missed by the studies looking for a link between GCRs and clouds is that they need to be looking for a localized effect. GCRs will only promote more cloud formation in environments where ionizing particles are the limiting factor on cloud formation. In environments where the lack of moisture, aerosols, or other particles is the limiting factor, we should not expect to see GCRs causing a change in cloud cover.

    I am not sure why everybody thinks the connection should be more evident in high clouds, other than that there would be more GCR-derived particles present there. Unfortunately, there is also generally a more significant dearth of moisture and aerosols there that would dwarf any change in GCRs from changes in solar activity. The authors of the study Leif linked to seem to be accepting of the presence of a GCR link in low clouds, and seem to agree that there may be localized connections as well. But I haven’t seen anybody yet, go looking specifically for places where theory would suggest that ionizing particles are the limiting factor in cloud formation, and then study the correlation with GCRs in those locations.

  37. The more Leif I read, the less I respect his opinion.
    He seems to be very quick to dismiss any views that oppose his own
    but very very fluffy when it comes to explaining or justifying his own.
    Up above here he sniped…
    “I think there were several cycle with an L&P effect in the 17th century…
    ‘doubt’ has to based on something to be valid.”
    So I guess one of Leif’s ‘thinks’ is worth several of anyone else’s ‘doubts’.
    He would have made a perfect Climate Scientist!

  38. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    van Loon says:
    April 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
    Thank you, I expected an answer like that.
    The important thing is if you took the answer to heart and learned something from it?

    Grammar Leif!!

  39. Anthony here’s a compliment: You are not a climate scientist [?]. The proof is in one small phrase in your post: “predicted and observed”. Climate scientists [?] do not observe.

  40. Extrapolating a line (by eye) through the mid points of the peaks of cycles 22, 23, 24 crosses the x axis at about the year 2035. But that should be round about cycle 26 max. So will cycle 25 not be so much missing as low, and it will be cycle 26 that effectively goes missing ?

    Some idle speculation for Leif to dismiss or …

  41. John Peter-

    A much better approach, here is Dr. Svalgaard’s presentation on the Maunder: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt

    That said, remember that showing a lack of correlation is not the same as proving a correlation. The data currently do not prove a correlation, but that does not mean one does not exist as has been widely discussed, the proxies just are not that good.

  42. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Green Sand says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:35 am
    ……they actually did upgrade and improve the instrument in 1982, which explains the decrease of the noise….

    —————————————————
    Thanks for the links Leif, will do some reading

  43. Yikes lsvalgaard, that was an extreme case of quoting vukcevic out of context. He was saying that ocean currents react to solar storms indirectly.

  44. vukcevic states :Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms
    lsvalgaard responds: The sun does not hit the Earth with ocean currents.
    ………………..
    An intellectually overwhelming riposte or put it simply ‘mind boggles’.

  45. Solar changes have a very large affect on planetary temperature. It appears the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar changes rather than increases in atmospheric CO2.

    The following is an abbreviated list of logical points to support that assertion:
    1. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record, which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. As each D-O cycle correlates with a solar cycle changes the question is not if the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the past observed D-O cycles but rather how. The 20th century warming matches the pattern of warming that was observed in other D-O cycles. (Has there been warming and cooling in the past? Yes. Does it appear the sun caused the past warming and cooling? Yes.)

    2. The 20th century warming does not match the pattern predicted by the extreme AGW (EAGW) theory. The EAGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in CO2 should be in the tropics, as this is the region where there is the largest amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space, rather than in high Northern Latitudes. (Hansen specific mentions the surprised warming in the high latitudes in his book but provides no physical explanation.) The EAGW theory also predicted that there should be a hot spot created in the tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the surface of the planet. There was no warming of the tropics and there was no hot spot. These two observations invalidate the EAGW theory. (Is observation of any warming proof of EAGW? No. Does the AGW theory predict a pattern of warming? Yes. Is that pattern of warming observed? No.)

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu

    Link to Joanne Nova’s summary of the issue.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

    Roy Spenser’s analysis that shows the tropical sea surface temperatures are not warming.

    Tropical SSTs Since 1998: Latest Climate Models Warm 3x Too fast

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    3. Lindzen and Choi found by analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation Vs planetary temperature changes and found that the planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes, by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. Point 2 and Point 3 are logically connected, physically supportive. (EAGW requires amplification of CO2 forcing in tropics. If there is no amplification the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1C or less. No global warming problem.)

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    4) There are hundreds of papers that are working out the details of how solar changes directly and indirectly modulate planetary cloud cover. The following are few and brief over of the mechanisms. (The cloud modulation mechanism a reduction in cloud cover in the specific regions of the planet where the 20 th century warming took place and where the cloud modulation theories predict the modulation should take place.)

    A) Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation of geomagnetic field index.
    (Note Ak is different than Ap. Ak measures fast wind bursts as it is a 3 hour average of changes to the geomagnetic field. Ap is a 24 hour of changes to geomagnetic field and hence misses the specific fast wind bursts that create space charge differentials in the ions sphere. See next for a review paper of the mechanisms.)

    Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
    This paper notes planetary temperature changes track the index ak. Ak changes when there are fast solar wind bursts. See next paper for an overview of the mechanisms.

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    B) Two mechanisms by which solar winds (electroscavenging) and changes to the solar heliosphere modulate (ion mediated nucleation) planetary clouds (see paper for details this excerpt describes concerning electroscavenging which is not discussed at Real Climate as it is “off message”,)

    This review paper Tinsley and Yu discusses the mechanisms by which changes to the solar heliosphere and changes to solar wind bursts modulate planetary cloud.

    http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/Yu_CR_CN_Cloud_Climate_JGR02.pdf

    "The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging). Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis."

    C) Satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover that confirms planetary cloud cover is modulated by GCR and solar wind bursts

    Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover
    1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
    Increases in the suns large scale magnetic field and increased solar wind reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.

    2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
    Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover does correlate with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes, particularly at the end of to the solar cycle, which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”. Satellite data (See attached link to Palle’s paper) that confirms that there has been a reduction in cloud cover over the oceans (There is a lack of cloud forming ions over the oceans. There are more ions over the continents due to natural radioactivity of the continental crust that is not shielded from the atmosphere by water.)

    "As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process."

    The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
    “Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.

    Still,whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight reaching the Earth would be very significant for the climate system.”

    http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

    5) The CO2 warming effect is not reversible. Points 1, 2, 3, and 4, support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar cycle changes. As the sun appears to be entering a deep minimum it is expected that the planet will cool. If and when the planet starts to cool (reversing the 20th century warming) that will provide unequivocal observational evidence that the EAGW theory was fundamentally incorrect. There is no global warming climate change problem.

  46. No, I didn’t Jon. He obvious doesn’t read the meteorological literature, and I expected a fluffy answer.

  47. Wayne2 says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm
    Not saying the original analogy is correct, but the ocean currents react to the solar storms.
    Link please.

    Norman Page says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    Leif Check Fig 3 C and D from Steinhilber et al .
    This shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Temperature Minima with cosmic Ray intensity

    Your link also says that the correlation is not so close and the times where it falters the climate is driven by “other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks”.
    One thing to be aware of is that the 10Be concentrations is also determined by the climate and not only bt solar activity.

  48. Leif, that Laken et al. (2012) paper you provide the link for concludes:

    …, it is clear that if a solar-cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude
    and could not have contributed appreciably to recent anthropo-genic climate changes.

    I am not absolutely certain, but still reasonably sure that not one individual who has argued for a CR/Cloud-formation link has ever suggested that solar radiation contributed to anthropogenic climate change. Also, it is pretty clear that they do not rule out a link between cloud formation and CR flux.

  49. Leif, thank you for sharing your thoughts and research here on this forum.

    What, in your opinion, is the cause of the Little Ice Age &/or the Medieval Warming period?

  50. Duster says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    …, it is clear that if a solar-cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude
    The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.

  51. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm
    Link please.

    I said indirectly
    But these people think it may be directly, just down the road from Stanford Uni.
    Electromagnetic induction fields in the deep ocean off California: oceanic and ionospheric sources
    The oceanic electromagnetic field is discussed in terms of its modal structure and wavelength dependence, and implications for seafloor magnetotellurics may be profound.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1984.tb01929.x/abstract

  52. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
    No need to respond to all the rest of your missive as the correlatrion you mention no longer holds, as is typical for spurious ones: e.g. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

    Craig Fisher says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    Leif, thank you for sharing your thoughts and research here on this forum.
    What, in your opinion, is the cause of the Little Ice Age &/or the Medieval Warming period?

    Or of all the other climate excursions over millennia. I don’t know [does anybody?], but it is typical for a complicated system with non-linear interactions like the climate to have stochastic fluctuations.

  53. HenryP says:
    April 9, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////
    Henry

    You are predicting only modest cooling, and you may be right. However, CET already shows a fall of some 0.5degC since the beginning of this century. The winter drop (December to February inclussive) is even more stark at 1.5degC. I suspect that much of Northern Europe is showing a similar trend.

    Of course, the above is not global but pertains solely to Northern Europe. but then again, people live mainly in the north and if the north cools much more than the southern hemisphere, it will have a more substantial effect on people (and crops) than your 0.3 to 0.4degC figures would suggest.

    Whilst Leif is very confident that weak solar cycles have all but no effect on temperatures, we will soon know (say within the next 10 to 15 years) whether he is right, or whether his confidence is misconceived. I myself have no idea how matters will pan out and I share the view expressed by Bloke down the pub (April 9, 2013 at 10:13 am)

  54. vukcevic says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:52 pm
    But these people think it may be directly, just down the road from Stanford Uni.
    Electromagnetic induction fields in the deep ocean off California: oceanic and ionospheric sources … implications for seafloor magnetotellurics may be profound

    A little knowledge paired with enormous ignorance is a dangerous thing. What the those folks are talking about is the [well-known] fact that ionospheric electric currents induce electric currents in the ocean [and in the ground as well]. The ‘profound effect’ is what happens if you do not take these currents into effect when imaging the sea bottom. This has nothing to do with climate and the effects are in any event very small and require sensitive instruments to discover. Lay off the pseudo-science.

  55. Does anyone the millimeter wave component above the atmosphere, so it can be compared to ground measurements and solar activity?

  56. Leif,
    If you suggest that the sun only has a minor effect and man’s CO2 has a trivial effect, what do you feel is the main cause of warming over the past century and lack of warming over the past 16 years ?

  57. I can sort of understand those who dismiss the possibility that variations in the sun’s output affect the earth’s climate. Correlations are not perfect and the total power fluctuations are so small (0.1%) that it seems unlikely to be significant. However such arguments are unscientific. You should not dismiss something simply because you cannot understand what the mechanism might be particularly given the fact that the Milankovitch cycles clearly show that small changes in things like length of seasons and obliquity do have an effect over longer term. So how could the small changes in the sun’s output affect the climate without anyone noticing?

    One possibility is the Svenmark cloud theory. This may be correct but I have another idea.

    The majority of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the sea. But the way this is absorbed depends on the wavelength.

    Infrafred radiation makes up about 50% of the 1000 watts of incoming radiation at the equator during the day and 100% of the downward radiation at night. All this energy is absorbed within a few millimetres of the surface and almost immediately released by radiation convection and evaporation. So fluctuations in the infrared part of the spectrum are balanced by a small and immediate change in surface losses.

    The visible spectrum makes up most of the rest of the energy and is absorbed at depths down to at least 60 metres. I know this because I have seen the bottom of a 30 metre deep “blue lagoon” .For this to be possible the blue part of the light from the sun must penetrate down to the bottom and make its way back to the top. A total distance of 60 metres. So this energy is absorbed at much deeper levels on average and any fluctuation in the amount of this radiation will not immediately increase the surface temperature. Thus a compensating increase in the outgoing radiation and evaporation will not happen until the deep sea currents bring this energy to the surface. Without an increase in sea surface temperature the radiation balance cannot be achieved and therefore an increase in the sun’s output will not be seen in the climate measurements until the natural ocean cycles work their magic.

    The remaining energy from the sun is in the UV part of the spectrum and about 3% makes it to the surface. This energy is absorbed very deep in the sea and therefore takes a long time to reach the surface where it can escape. Any fluctuations at this wavelength might therefore not be detectable at the surface for decades or maybe even centuries. Clearly the Argos buoys will now give us some insight into this but it will probably take a century of measurements to quantify any effects. This 3% is important since the 30 watts per metre sq does fluctuate by a large amount depending on the sun’s level of activity. Thus we have a small but highly volatile energy source which affects the accumulation of huge amounts of energy in the deep oceans over several decades without any compensating change to the radiation balance until maybe decades later.

    If anyone has done any research that can dismiss this as a possible cause of multi-decadal
    climate fluctuations I would be interested to hear from them.

  58. jbird says:
    April 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm
    Does this mean anything?

    http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023

    No: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
    The red and blue curves are modern reconstructions of solar radiation.

    Dr Burns says:
    April 9, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    what do you feel is the main cause of warming over the past century and lack of warming over the past 16 years ?
    As the solar forcing is supposed to have a 10-20 year lag because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, it can hardly be the sun that is responsible. And besides, total solar output is now higher than at it was 13 years ago when our reliable data starts. So I must ascribe the variation is temperature to one of the normal fluctuations a complicated, non-linear system undergoes.

  59. lsvaalgaard says

    Or of all the other climate excursions over millennia. I don’t know [does anybody?], but it is typical for a complicated system with non-linear interactions like the climate to have stochastic fluctuations.

    This is probably caused by the effects of the sun; the most likely cause, as outlined by Prof, Don Easterbrook. “Stochastic fluctations” are always caused by something. Changes of that magnitude are probably not caused by random movements of air currents or oceans. Browinian motion was caused by molecules colliding with the pollen.

  60. Bob from the UK says:
    April 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm
    This is probably caused by the effects of the sun … “Stochastic fluctuations” are always caused by something.
    If so, they wouldn’t be stochastic, but deterministic…

  61. lsvalgaard says:
    Lay off the pseudo-science.
    …………..
    Myself and many others are looking at various factors, it is as a kind of an experiment where conditions are varied in order to test hypothesis.
    Some of the factors spoken of may have some effect, some may not, but something definitely has the effect.
    In your wisdom you dismiss everything out of hand, but do not offer any constructive ideas in exchange. One gets impression that you are attempting your utmost to suppress what appear to be obvious. That may not be pseudo-science but could be, to put it in extreme terms ‘solar climate link’ science-icide. :)

  62. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:21 am
    “There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.”

    …And the SC10-22 data perfectly agree wirh you :

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:1996.4/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:1996.4/mean:514/normalise

    (the 514 corresponds to 2 average Hale cycles for the given period)
    I don’t worry, I just have an apprehension:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1775.5/to:1798.4/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1798.4/to:1964.8/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1964.8/to:1996.4/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1996.4/to:2008.9/trend

  63. vukcevic says:
    April 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    Some of the factors spoken of may have some effect, some may not, but something definitely has the effect.
    Almost everything has effect. The question is ‘how much’. If the answer is ‘very very little’ the effect is not of interest.

    tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
    …And the SC10-22 data perfectly agree wirh you
    We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?

    • tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
      April 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm
      “We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?”
      That was for teasing illustration purposes of the past very close correlation and because since the end of SC22 there’s no significant warming, but no problem to go to the end of the SC23 (to go behind I think is not correct if we for obvious reasons chosed to work only with the whole solar cycles minimum-to-minimum):

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2008.9/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2008.9/mean:514/normalise

      What I see important is the steep downward SSN trend since the SC22 from the other chart. What I find wery interesting is the fact that the usual SSN charts well hide the fact that the average of the SC21-22 Hale cycle (SSN average 80.9) is almost the same as the SC18-19 Hale cycle (SSN average 82.9) and the SC22 average SSN was still 80.6. Now maybe already behind the peak of the SC24 is its average SSN 34.4 and if it will continue like that then its average will be <30. That's quite a decline comparable with the decline to the Dalton minimum (which had then Hale cycle SC5-6 average SSN 20.7). What I find interesting there is the temperatures from that time which we have in the unique Prague Klementinum instrumental record – during the decline of the SC4 we have had a very warm decade 1790-1799 here in Prague (the average temperature was 10.32°C) which is comparable even with the decade 1990-1999 (10.25°C after the conservative UHI correction 0.49°C – the Klementinum is the center of the center of the Prague – see my article here: http://www.sott.net/article/203282-Czechgate-Part-Two-The-GISS-rape-of-Prague for details). So maybe there's a lag of the temperature (quite consistently visible in the 1st chart) behind the solar activity and given the cancelling effects during the solar cycle I would think it is at least one solar cycle and during transient periods when the trends dramatically change direction maybe even more. That's why I think there will be no significant warming trend at least to the beginning of the SC25 (and if there will be the further solar activity decline in the SC25 there could be a significant cooling trend). This translates into the implication that there will be no significant warming trend next 10 years with almost certainty, which will have absolutely killing effect on all the CAGW political agenda even if all the UNFCC anthropogenic CO2 alarmist implications would be true. I think that the data we already have imply that it is already a riding of a well dead horse and I really wonder why some solar scientists still ride it.

    • lsvalgaard says:
      April 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm
      “The decline in PMOD TSI is not real, it is an artifact caused by uncompensated degradation of the instrument, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png. TSI has not declined since accurate measurements by SORCE TIM began in 2003, in fact TSI is now the highest ever measured by SORCE/TIM http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png

      Too short period of TIM operation to say anything about long trends – and I’m quite not sure now with the TIM, because the TSI departure up on your 2nd picture looks to me quite very suspicious too.
      And if I just have a glance at the TIM data (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt) it surely doesn’t look to me it now measures the “highest ever TSI” – as the PMOD at WFT is with the last values from the mid 2011 some 4+W/m2 higher than TIM in the same period and it was not better throughout the whole TIM/PMOD comparison… :) Moreover if I look into the TIM data little deeper it doesn’t look to me one can tell with sufficient certainty the TIM is now measuring higher TSI than at the beginning of of the data from Feb 2003.
      …I usually prefer SSN as it is not so much relying on the expensive and to epic failure prone composites of the satelite instruments. And if one looks how the older TSI composite was put together I suspect it is not too reliable for really reliable longterm trend comparisons and it is anyway to short for anything like it. So you’re at least partially right with pointing out the PMOD “unreality” and I think my TSI implications from the 5. should be taken with a grain of salt.
      Nevertheless to me the overal amplitudes of the TIM and PMOD for the same period look quite simmilar and when I look at your first image then I see the TIM/PMOD difference shift from the beginning of the graph to the peak of the SC24 ~0.14W/m2 (I don’t say it is not significant), so it is the value you can subtract from the trends ending at the SC24 peak I derived from the PMOD and for the blue trend ending in the SC24 beginning if I look at your picture it would be the subtraction of the ~0.04W/m2, so the trends using your correction would be ~0.7W/m2 decline trend of the TSI since the SC22peak and from the SC23peak to the SC24peak ~1.05W/m2 decline trend and ~0.7W/m2 decline trend between SC23beginning and SC24beginning – which are still quite very considerable numbers…

  64. Svaalgard
    If so, they wouldn’t be stochastic, but deterministic…

    No that´s not true. You seem to be implying that there are “purely” random processes. In nature no such process/phenomen exists..

  65. @NZ Willy

    Aye, I think it was in 2006 where a massive CME headed straight for earth while I was working in Seattle. A couple days later, I flew home to Nevada, and headed out into the desert scouting a new way to get to one of my favorite places. I was driving with my buddy at night, and noticed a faint red glow to the north east resembling the glow you would see coming from a large far away city (such as Reno). There are no towns in that direction (except maybe Lovelock, though Lovelock wasn’t exactly in the right direction, and it could not have been Winnemucca as there were to many mountain ranges in the way), so at the time, it was just an oddity. We drove up through a tight canyon, crested the top, and suddenly got a full view of the sky, at which point the brakes on the old ’66 FJ40 got locked and we lurched to a very quick stop. The entire sky was covered with shimmering curtains of flourescent turquoise, constantly changing shape and size. It was the first (and only) time I had seen the northern lights and according to the paper the first time they had been seen in Nevada since the 1800′s. We sat there in the Landcruiser with the windshield down on that mountain top transfixed for hours. Some time after midnight the show became less spectacular, though still pretty awesome, and we then continued forward eventually reaching the Black Rock Desert, which was a treat, crossing the Black Rock at night is like crossing the sea, it is one hundred percent flat with no roads for 25 miles, the ribbons in the sky gave plenty of light to see the distant topography so I could easily keep my course correct. Though the drapes faded over time, the northern sky looked like the sun was going to rise at any moment all the way till dawn. I will say however the sudden unexpected view of the northern lights in all their glory just as I crested a mountain pass fully stunned me in its magnificence, and I was lucky enough to be in one of the darkest places in the US..

  66. Bob from the UK says:
    April 9, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    No that´s not true. You seem to be implying that there are “purely” random processes. In nature no such process/phenomen exists..
    Apart from Quantum Mechanics [where nature at the bottom is random] you may consider a process that is non-predictable to be random [this is the definition of random]. Since we cannot really predict the climate, the climate qualifies as a random process. Now imagine that we could predict the climate from solar activity, then climate would no longer be a random process, but it has not been shown that we actually can do this [apart from the fact that it is hard to predict solar activity].

  67. lsvalgaard says:April 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    “The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”

    So in what form does the major driving of Earth’s climate by Jupiter take?
    Does the Sun in any way influence Jupiter’s driving mechanism of Earth climate?

  68. Suffice it to say …. none of you “KNOW” squat [including the good Dr.]. All can point to their little graphs, full of assumptions, or lacking in assumptions, … [specifically the correct assumptions that are not known], and make empty claims.

    Soooo … as I said way back when SC24 began .. we’ll all just have to wait. Collect the data, record observations, …. then torture them to say what you want them to say.

    We do know this …. CO2 is still going up .. the Sun is going down, and Temp is FLAT.

  69. Ben D. says:
    April 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    “The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”
    So in what form does the major driving of Earth’s climate by Jupiter take?

    Jupiter [with some smaller help from the other planets] changes the orbit of the Earth which in turn changes the climate [and bring glaciations].

    Does the Sun in any way influence Jupiter’s driving mechanism of Earth climate?
    No

    Dr. Deanster says:
    April 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    All can point to their little graphs, full of assumptions, or lacking in assumptions, … [specifically the correct assumptions that are not known], and make empty claims.
    And in ten [or twenty, or ...] years all can [and will] do exactly the same. The question has long left the domain of science [to wit some of the claims made above] and is now about what one ‘believes’.

  70. In reply to

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
    No need to respond to all the rest of your missive as the correlatrion you mention no longer holds, as is typical for spurious ones: e.g. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

    In a formal debate, one is not allowed to ignore logical points that do not support you position.

    The 2012 paper you quoted ‘A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations’ did not disprove the solar modulation of planetary clouds. It presented multiple technical reasons why it was difficult to measure planetary cloud cover. You ignored the paper you quoted and then presented cloud data that ignores the effect of solar wind bursts on planetary cloud cover and state that graph disproves the modulation mechanism which it does not.

    You ignored the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, Dansgaard-Oscheger cycles. What caused the D-O cycles?

    The EAGW theory predicted the majority of the greenhouse gas warming would be in the tropics and that there would be tropical hot spot. The majority of the warming occurred in the North Hemisphere at high latitudes. If you look at the graph I linked to which is Greenland ice core data you can see Greenland repeatedly warmed and cooled, the D-O cycles. The 20th century warming is in the same region.

    Not understanding how the solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary temperature is very different. That is what the paper you quoted try to convince the reader.

    Solar changes have a very large affect on planetary temperature. It appears the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar changes rather than increases in atmospheric CO2.

    1. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record, which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. As each D-O cycle correlates with a solar cycle changes the question is not if the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the past observed D-O cycles but rather how. The 20th century warming matches the pattern of warming that was observed in other D-O cycles. (Has there been warming and cooling in the past? Yes. Does it appear the sun caused the past warming and cooling? Yes.)

    2. The 20th century warming does not match the pattern predicted by the extreme AGW (EAGW) theory. The EAGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in CO2 should be in the tropics, as this is the region where there is the largest amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space, rather than in high Northern Latitudes. (Hansen specific mentions the surprised warming in the high latitudes in his book but provides no physical explanation.) The EAGW theory also predicted that there should be a hot spot created in the tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the surface of the planet. There was no warming of the tropics and there was no hot spot. These two observations invalidate the EAGW theory. (Is observation of any warming proof of EAGW? No. Does the AGW theory predict a pattern of warming? Yes. Is that pattern of warming observed? No.)

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

    Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu

    Link to Joanne Nova’s summary of the issue.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

    Roy Spenser’s analysis that shows the tropical sea surface temperatures are not warming.

    Tropical SSTs Since 1998: Latest Climate Models Warm 3x Too fast

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    3. Lindzen and Choi found by analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation Vs planetary temperature changes and found that the planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes, by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. Point 2 and Point 3 are logically connected, physically supportive. (EAGW requires amplification of CO2 forcing in tropics. If there is no amplification the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1C or less. No global warming problem.)

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

  71. There see? We’ve now broken the sun. Maybe it’s too many solar panels. Dunno, but someone’s getting a research grant as we speak to investigate further.

    PS… since it’s something we’ve been watching, it just HAS to be human-caused, just like O3 and CO2.

  72. SC24 is going to continue to behave the same way it has been behaving for over 4 years. I see nothing to indicate a change in behavior, and since the L&P Effect is undaunted and the N&S Active Region belts refuse to coalesce any further towards the equator, it’s all downhill from here.

  73. There is no dispute that explosive volcanic eruptions affect temperatures on Earth. There have been many demonstrations – the latest obvious one being the Pinatubo eruption. There is a higher incidence of volcanism during and for quite a time after periods when GCRs are higher than “normal”. These higher incidences of volcanism (and associated earthquakes) are caused by the increases in muons generated when very high speed protons impact atoms of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (Radiocarbon 14 is also one product from these impacts as is Be10. The sun is not powerful enough to generate the energies the protons have to have to produce muons, radiocarbon 14, etc.
    A paper by a multi-disciplinary team of Japanese scientists drawn from Riken Advanced Science Institute, the Institute of Cosmic Ray Research (University of Tokyo), The Japan Atomic Energy Agency and the Riken Computational Science Research Program showed how muons can affect the calderas of certain volcanos and how increased densities of muons can cause explosive eruptions. They do this by changing the chemical composition of matter within silica rich magma, particularly when it is cool, so that aerosols are formed, which eventually lead to increased pressure within the magma chamber and hence explosive eruptions. Presumably a steady state is reached with normal muon penetration of the caldera but with significantly more than usual muons and perhaps when they have higher energies than normal then disequilibrium occurs. Extinct volcanoes are also affected hence there can be increased earthquake activity around extinct volcanoes at these times. See ToshikazuEbiska, Hiroko Miyahara, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine: Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber- – Godwana Research, November 2010
    This means that GCRs indirectly have an effect on climate but this can be delayed sometimes by years – possibly even decades. I think we should stop looking for direct effects and concentrate on the subtleties of nature.

  74. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    In a formal debate, one is not allowed to ignore logical points that do not support you position.
    I don’t think this is a ‘formal debate’. You are just spouting reasons why you don’t believe CAGW.

    What caused the D-O cycles?
    They don’t exist. The ‘cycles’ are just artifacts of smoothing of ‘bimodal’ climate fluctuations.

    The rest of your comment is just argumentation against AWG. And has nothing to do with the Sun.

    tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 9, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    “We are in SC24, so why stop at SC22?”
    That was for teasing illustration purposes of the past very close correlation and because since the end of SC22 there’s no significant warming

    Using all the data [rather than to cherry-pick a subset] shows that the correlation breaks down http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise
    Same if you go back in time.

    • lsvalgaard says:
      April 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm
      Using all the data [rather than to cherry-pick a subset] shows that the correlation breaks down http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.9/to:2013.1/mean:514/normalise
      Same if you go back in time.

      1. I cannot go back in time at WFT because HADCRUT4GL is there only from 1850 so it is quite pointless argument – also because there is no reliable instrumental global surface air temperature composite before 1850.
      2. There’s an obvious purpose why to work with the whole solar cycles if we use long running average smoothing, so I think it is not cherry-picking. (if you make any linear trend beginning and ending at ad-hoc nodes with SNN, you can obtain very dubious results)
      3. There’s no significant correlation of the CO2 average surface air temperature either since the beginning of the SC23 – it completely broke down or in the last decade it is even an anticorrelation. (And I don’t say it is a causal anticorrelation nor that it is significant!)
      4. I strongly suspect there’s a lag of the average surface AIR temperature behind the solar activity during the periods when its trends dramatically change (a lag is consistently present in all real thermodynamic systems and especially in those where the latent heat intervenes – for example an ice floating in the ocean water will have under melting point temperature so long until all of it is melted) – due to huge heat content stored in liquids and solids at the surface of the Earth and due to the partial cancelling effects during the rise and then again descent of the solar activity in the frame of one solar cycle.
      5. If there is indeed the causality solar activity > average surface air temperatures – as it very much looks from the bulk of the instrumental data available for comparison, especially the SC10-SC22, then if there wouldn’t be the lag, then we should already experience a significant average surface air temperature decline since the SC22 peak, because we since then objectively experience ~0.85W/m2 decline trend of the TSI and since the peak of the SC23 even ~1.2W/m2 decline trend – as you can see when examining TSI data SC22peak-SC24peak and ~0.75W/m2 decline trend is also visible from the SC22 end to the SC23 end:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1989.5/to:2012.16/trend/plot/pmod/from:2000.25/to:2012.16/trend/plot/pmod/from:1996.41/to:2008.93/trend

      (And it would not much change even if there would be a “second peak” in the SC24 – which I now doubt for multiple reasons)
      6. The volumetric heat capacity of the air is typically thousands of times lower than the heat capacity of the liquids and solids. All the heat in the atmosphere has its equivalent stored in just ~1/4000th of the ocean volume – in other words in less than 1 meter of its surface, so the ocean is a huge heatsink (the simmilar is the green biosphere which also sinks both heat and CO2 – which is well visible at its periodic seasonal fluctuations), but it is also a huge heat reservoir, substantially able to heat the air whenewer it has a lower temperature than the ocean water, not speaking about the interesting effects of the water dilatometric anomaly, which makes the heat sink all the way to the bottom of the sea (although it takes loads of time) where nobody is systematically measuring anything.
      7. We don’t see a significant upward trend of the surface ocean temperature at least for 13 years (if we remain ultraconservative and we do not go back to the strong 97-98 El Nino). For simmilar periods we don’t see any significant upward trend of the average surface air temperature in any of the composites. We also don’t see a significant upward trend of the ocean heat content for more than half decade and already over 3 years there is an accelerating upward trend of the sea ice area http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2010/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2010/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2011/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2011/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2012/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2012/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2009/to:2012.99/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2009/to:2012.99/trend – moreover at the southern hemisphere (offsetting the NH loss) it is gaining ice at a very considerably lower latitudes then are the latitudes of the northern sea ice – making the two hardly comparable.
      All this more or less coincides with the very sharp decline of the longterm bipeak 3 Hale cycle solar activity maximum in SC17-22 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1902.16/to:2013/mean:126/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1933.6/to:1996.41/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1944.16/to:1996.41/trend). This all still can be just an insignificant fluctuation, or, as I suspect, it can indicate a trend change of the total heat in the system, even it is most probably partially slowed down and ofsetted by the ocean heat equilibrium change, latent heat and GHE. Where the trend goes it remains to be seen. But if we will not see a significant surface air temperature upward trend in the next 20 years (for example due to further decline of the solar activity in the SC25), then all the superexpensive CAGW mitigation was an exercise in futility, because then the problem of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions will solve itself with the general fossil peak.

  75. pokerguy says:
    April 9, 2013 at 11:51 am
    Professor Svalgaard, Really appreciate your contribution to these solar threads. Of course I hope you’re right about solar minima and climate, otherwise it will likely be a very different world if damaging cooling sets in. How many years would you say, before we know if you’re correct or not (assuming we do find ourselves in a Maunder or Dalton type minimum)?

    >>>>>>>>>

    The “peer review” has not gone too well, huh Professor?

  76. geran says:
    April 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    How many years would you say, before we know if you’re correct or not (assuming we do find ourselves in a Maunder or Dalton type minimum)?
    another solar cycle, i.e. 10 years. Cycle 25 should be really low [how low is hard to say - anywhere from 7 to 25 sunspot number - but even that is speculation].

  77. For those of you that would like a detailed look on how events on the sun effect the Earth, there is a good book that is available on line “Solar Influences on Global Changes” at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4778&page=24
    The book includes the results of different spacecraft experiments. Page 24 gives a chart of TSI variation during the solar cycle. Page 26 has an interesting comment “Sun’s radiative energy – precise determination – exists only at wavelengths shorter than about 250 nm.” Page 51 has comments about solar-induced varations. Only x-ray events have sufficient energy to penetrate into the lower atmosphere and enter the Hadley circulation. M-class and X-class flares are x-ray flares that have sufficient energy. You may remember that January 2013 had 6 M-Class flares and showed a temporary heating of the atmosphere. As you would expect, the book blames CO2 for the Earth’s major climate changes.

  78. Everyone is missing the solar elephant in the room, UV!
    UV does change significantly during the solar cycle and is one of the main drivers of stratospheric weather via the UV/ozone cycle. Along with volcanic SO2/water vapour drivers, the stratosphere markedly affects our weather via jet streams and provides a physical explanation for heating and cooling of the earth due to heat transfer rates from the tropical engine to the polar radiators!
    The increased atmospheric mixing during meridional dominant phases also produces cooling from increased cloud cover and matches the pattern of increased storms in europe during the little Ice age. Zonal/Meridional energy transport also applies to oceanic cycles and may be important in longer term cycles such as the PDO or even ice ages.

  79. Great News!!! Planetary temperature is closely correlated to the Solar Magnetic Cycle, 1986 to 2000 (Hint sunspot count is only a proxy. The parameter to analyze is Ak (3 hour average geomagnetic field disturbance which is correlated to solar wind bursts. Note Ap is a 24 hour average geomagnetic field disturbance which is not the same.)

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    PS to see paper you must copy the link and paste into the internet browser.
    Once again about global warming and solar activity by K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov
    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for
    global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    Fig. 6. Global temperature anomalies T (solid line) and ak index of geomagnetic activity (broken line) for the period 1856-2000; climatic normals. (William: Great news!!! There is correlation of Planetary temperature changes to changes in AK 1856 to 2000. See paper for details.)

    How well does the sunspot number reflect the variations in solar irradiance and solar wind? Sunspots themselves are not geoeffective. Geoffective are the solar active regions in which sunspots are embedded. These are regions of strong magnetic field with closed field lines geometry (magnetic flux tubes). The brightness of the flux tubes (and hence the solar irradiance) depend on the magnetic field strength which also determines the number of sunspots, so there is a linear relationship between sunspot number and irradiance (Fligge and Solanki 2000). When flux tubes become unstable, they erupt and give rise to solar flares and/or coronal mass ejections (CMEs). The most intense geomagnetic disturbances in both sunspot minimum and sunspot maximum are generated by CMEs (Richardson et al. 2001), and their number and the velocity of the solar wind associated with them follow the sunspot cycle (Gopalswamy et al. 2003), so the sunspot number can be considered a good measure of the solar wind originating from closed magnetic field regions. Especially geoeffective are magnetic clouds (MCs) – a subclass of CMEs
    distinguished by the high magnetic field magnitude and the smooth magnetic field rotation inside the structure (Georgieva and Kirov 2005). CMEs, however, are not the only source of high speed solar wind. Early in the 20th century it was noticed that many geomagnetic storms occur without any visible solar disturbance. Such storms tend to recur every 27 days – the period of solar rotation, therefore they originate from long-living regions on the Sun which come back into geoeffective position rotation after rotation. Only when X-rays telescopes were flown above the atmosphere it was found out that are large regions of open magnetic field geometry, and sources of high speed solar wind. They are now known as Coronal Holes (CHs) because, due to their lower density and temperature compared to the surrounding corona, they look darker in X-rays.

    3. CMEs, MCs and CHs
    We will now compare the properties and geoeffectiveness of the two types of solar drivers – High Speed Streams (HSSs) from coronal holes, and CMEs, additionally dividing the CMEs into two types – MCs and non-MC CMEs (which we will further denote as simply CMEs). Our study covers 11 years, from 1992 to 2002. In this period we have 92 MCs (Georgieva et al. 2005) and 128 CMEs from the list of Cane and Richardson (2003) from which all events identified as MCs have been removed and 126 CHs identified in the OMNI database (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ omniweb). Figure 2 presents a comparison of the mean solar wind speed for the three types of solar drivers while Figure 3 shows the solar cycle variation of their speed.

  80. Retired Engineer John says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:10 pm
    For those of you that would like a detailed look on how events on the sun effect the Earth, there is a good book that is available on line “Solar Influences on Global Changes”
    It is 20 years old so cannot be expected to give a modern view. A lot has happened in those 20 years.

  81. All I know is we are getting dangerously close to the gaus rate of 1500 where sun spots will not do anything even if they form. The sun spots even if they are big are not acting normally now. We are on the down trend and will continue for the forseable future.

  82. Rob JM says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    And you wouldn’t even need that to produce an agricultural/commerce disaster. All that is necessary to do it to transfer a lot of cold from the Poles to the Mid-Latitudes, as in a zero-sum game. Whatever global loss of heat energy is inflicted by changes in Solar Activity is salt rubbed in the wounds.
    The Little Ice Age didn’t happen just because and no other reason. It had drivers and inputs. Same with other cooling periods and Ice Ages themselves. The trick is to identify and understand the causes BEFORE the onset, not after the fact.
    Hey, you don’t want to be a Sunspot short and a cycle late, right?

  83. To think we can use a few thousand years of surveillance of the sun to predict our future is simply fantasy. How old is this place anyhow?

    Remember who and where you are,,,,, watch, learn, and adapt.

    That is what we do, no?

  84. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    Great News!!! Planetary temperature is closely correlated to the Solar Magnetic Cycle, 1986 to 2000 (Hint sunspot count is only a proxy. The parameter to analyze is Ak (3 hour average geomagnetic field disturbance which is correlated to solar wind bursts. Note Ap is a 24 hour average geomagnetic field disturbance which is not the same.)
    Nonsense. First you are confused about Ap and Ak. They both are designed and meant to show the same phenomenon. The convention is that Ak and Ap are the daily mean of ak and ap. Ak is less reliable as it is derived from a single station only. The ‘solar wind bursts’ is a misnomer. The wind blows all the time and ak and ap measure the effect at all times. When the interplanetary magnetic field turns southward and/or the solar wind speed is high, both ak and ap go up. You can learn more here http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
    Second there has been no secular increase in geomagnetic disturbances since at least 1844. The early ak-values derived by Nevanlinna were systematically too low.

  85. As for charts, there is a nice one in Through Space and Time by Sir James Jeans. Sir Gregory shows a direct correlation between lake levels of Lake Victoria and sunspot activity in the early 1900s. Also, in the 1878 Jan. Popular Science, early scientists and Observers, like us, point to fewer hurricanes during low sunspot activity. Lloyds of London points to an increase of lost shipping disasters by 17% during high sunspot activity over lower sunspot activity. In other words, more storms at see not seen my the eyes in the sky. Rain increased 26% due to sunspot activity.

    Then, if we take a look at this in historical numbers, during low sunspot activity, there are droughts, higher food prices, selling of live stock, etc. Both Russia and the USA have slaughtered off thousands of head of cattle due to present drought conditions that began before 2008.

    President Putin, ordered the Russia Grid squared away back in 2009. Let’s go back to another major decline, though not a minimum, about 1300 A.D. Mound Builders and Cave Dwellers left their long time homes for other places. At the same time, England was hit with a lot of rain and lost crops. What is happening now? Same thing.

    I think the Good Dr. has done his homework.

    The point is the cycle is in decline through maybe 2019. Then, add 11 more years of a small cycle, roughly. Throw in some climate lag. All those greenhouse gases have to catch up. So, around 2035, we will start up again for the next century. All that we lost in temperatures, rain, snow, and food will start up again.

    Everglades should be cleared of pythons, the south of African Bees and all those Miami, Florida pets from downunder will be upside down in the city parks with little x’s in their eyes.

    I saw some of this back in 1960 through 1979. Snow in an Ohio summer. What a memory.

    Paul Pierett

  86. Isvalgaard 7:34 “Solar Influences on Global Changes”
    It is 20 years old so cannot be expected to give a modern view. A lot has happened in those 20 years.
    Where can I find an updated book? Did the book make untrue claims?

  87. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 5:09 pm
    What caused the D-O cycles?
    They don’t exist. The ‘cycles’ are just artifacts of smoothing of ‘bimodal’ climate fluctuations.
    I forgot a reference link, here is one: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Obrochta2012.pdf
    “Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging.”

  88. “Jupiter [with some smaller help from the other planets] changes the orbit of the Earth which in turn changes the climate [and bring glaciations].”

    Dr. S: Do you have a link handy, or do I start with wiki or google?

  89. Yes, it does appear cyclic solar changes did in the past cause planetary temperature changes. The temperature changes are strongest in the Northern Hemisphere and are recorded in the proxy sea floor sediment analysis as well as the Greenland ice sheet. As the D-O cycle (warming followed by cooling) is regular that rules out earth based mechanisms as they are chaotic. The past planetary temperature changes match the 20th century warming in terms of magnitude and the location where the warming occurred.

    Your comments concerning Ak and Ap are not correct. The solar wind most certainly changes in speed. Yes it always blows. Ak is a three hour average and Ap is 24 hour average. There are technical reasons why a single station is used. The point is to measure how fast the solar wind speed is changing. The derivative. You appear to not understand the difference between a steady wind and a changing wind. A three hour average and 24 hour average entire planet. The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions, by a mechanism called electroscavenging. You appear to not understand why a fast change to the solar wind would create a space charge differential in the ionosphere.

    Comment:
    As noted above the 20th century warming is not in the location predicted by the AGW theory. As noted above the AGW theory tropical troposphere hot spot is not observed. These two facts are relevant to this discussion, as many people just assume if there is warming that proves the warming is AGW. That is not correct. If a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to solar cycle changes, the planet will now cool, based on what has happened in the past.

    The following is the Greenland Ice sheet data that shows the D-O cycle from Richard Alley’s paper.
    As one can see the Greenland Ice sheet records the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, and the Modern warm period. I do not know why anyone would suggest ice sheet boundary conditions are causing what is observed. It is the sun. There are cosmogenic isotope changes at each climate change cycle.

    This is my last comment on this subject.

    The fact that cosmogenic isotope changes correlate with cyclic significant planetary temperature change has been known for roughly 15 years. Great progress has been made to work out the mechanisms by which the sun affects planetary temperature. One item that is holding that research back is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover. The second hold back is be a difficult getting funding and papers published as this work directly changes the extreme AGW theory.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory

    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.

    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the
    southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on
    climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

    Svensmark finds the D-O temperature cycle in Greenland and Antarctic using direct temperature measurement in the ice sheet. Svensmark notes as the temperature change is simultaneous in Greenland and Antarctic that requires a mechanism that affect both poles simultaneously.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1

    The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays

    Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation[15]. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.

    This paper notes it is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf

  90. Retired Engineer John says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    Where can I find an updated book? Did the book make untrue claims?
    Perhaps premature claims would be closer to the mark. A newer and updated book is hard to come by as new good evidence has not been forthcoming.
    There is a couple of advocacy books out there, but there are really no good, e.g. ‘the chilling stars’

    Tom in Texas says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    “Jupiter [with some smaller help from the other planets] changes the orbit of the Earth which in turn changes the climate [and bring glaciations].”
    Dr. S: Do you have a link handy, or do I start with wiki or google?

    Wiki is good enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    This paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf deals with and resolves some of the problems mentioned in the Wiki.

  91. Clouds, cosmic rays, the magnetosphere … I still like Brian Cox’s Death Valley experiment and the efficacy of Milankovitch cycles. There is one thing that is certain, CO2 is mitigating this spring by fertilizing the late planting on the Northern Plains and Steppe. That would be one reason to vent a misused salt cavern ;)

  92. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    Your comments concerning Ak and Ap are not correct.

    http://www.sci.fi/~fmbb/astro/indices.htm

    “ak index. A 3-hourly “equivalent amplitude” index of geomagnetic activity for a specific station or network of stations (represented generically here by k) expressing the range of disturbance in the horizontal magnetic field. ”
    Ak index. A daily index of geomagnetic activity for a specific station or network of stations (represented generically here by k) derived as the average of the eight 3-hourly ak indexes in a Universal Time day
    ap index. A mean, 3-hourly “equivalent amplitude” of magnetic activity based on K index data from a planetary network of 11 Northern and 2 Southern Hemisphere magnetic observatories between the geomagnetic latitudes of 46 degrees and 63 degrees
    Ap index. Formally the daily Ak index, determined from the eight daily ap indexes.”
    P.S. I happen to be one of the foremost experts on this topic

    You know not whereof you speak.
    The rest of your comment is just a collection of the usual, outdated, old references.

  93. So far this solar cycle, I have seen actuality be mostly below the forecast
    of the red curve – but sometimes spiking to meet or slightly surpass it.

    Also, is not solar weakening along cycles around 200-1,000 years
    supposed to lengthen the ~11 year cycle?

    Therefore, I consider it reasonable to consider that a 2nd peak comparable
    to or even exceeding the one of late 2011 is at least somewhat likely.

  94. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:35 pm
    Therefore, I consider it reasonable to consider that a 2nd peak comparable
    to or even exceeding the one of late 2011 is at least somewhat likely.

    There might be several such peaks if cycle 24 will be resembling its ‘twin’ cycle 14:

    http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

    To talk of just a double-peak is silly or perhaps an attempt to ‘dumb-down’ reality.

  95. henry@richard verwey

    the appearance of my a-c wave has been confirmed
    It seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:

    Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

    Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
    Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390

    and according to my various calculations by the time we get to 2038 we will be back to where we were in 1950.

    So, in total, I think we will see a -0.5K anomaly from 1998 – 2040.
    I think it does mean more snow and ice and cold in the NH and far northern regions but England and Holland should not cool that much in total (if you look over the whole year). Don’t need any GCR theory: if the earth cools naturally you get a bigger differential between the equator and the poles so there is a general shift of more clouds from a larger portion of latitude to a smaller portion of latitude between the north (south) of the equator. More cloud formation on and around the equator means less energy in the oceans….etc.so the cooling cycle amplifies.

    Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, people looked at the planets to explain weather cycles, rightly or wrongly.
    see here

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    to quote from the above paper:
    “A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with
    maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….

    end quote

    Acording to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap, as being around 1995.
    and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.
    This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998.

    Anyway, look again at my best sine wave plot for my data
    now see:

    1900 minimum flooding – end of the warming
    1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
    1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
    predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.

    Do you see the pertinent correlation with my sine wave?

  96. SC 24 is not past the maximum, there are always multiple peaks (depending on smoothing). Although the exact dating of the maximum is somewhat arbitrary, I still predict ~2014 for the maximum. The decline will not really start before 2015.

  97. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:39 am

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:24 am
    Pesnell is dead wrong.
    REPLY: Care to explain why? – Anthony
    The correct statement he should have made is “solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks”.

    When one peak is due to spot counts reaching a maximum in the northern hemisphere and the second peak is due to spot counts in the southern hemisphere reaching their maximum at a different time, then the double peak observation is clearly not due to a smoothing artifact.

    And why are people so pissy when this topic comes up? Also, some commenters should consider this fact: writing more doesn’t mean you know more.

  98. Having read with interest the exchanges between Dr Svalgaard and others, it is worth recalling an ancient bit of English common sense. Ockam’s (sometimes Occam’s) Razor. What it boils down to is this:

    All other things being equal (and I’d submit with all the uncertainty, inadequacy and sheer lack of meaningful data about everything in play on this thread – we cannot even predict solar cycles with any degree of skill), the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely the correct one.

    It’s the Sun. The Sun is the massively predominant source of heat and light energy for Earth (across all wavelength spectrums). A quiet Sun (whatever “quiet” means) equates to cooler climate; active Sun (whatever that means) equate to warmer climate.

    How the ionosphere, atmosphere, oceans, landmasses (possibly including tectonics and volcanism to some extent) etc react to Solar activity or lack thereof, what time lags or other cyclical phenomena might already be, or are set in motion, is immaterial “noise” at the end of the day – study them by all means, but realise they are not the ultimate drivers.

    The Sun is. I’m jus’ saying y’all, as simple kinda guy….

  99. In reply to:

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    This paper notes it is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf

    Yet you claim that “Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993″.
    So it must have been easy back then. You are not being consistent.
    Palle measured planetary cloudiness by changes in the brightness of the moon. You appear to have not read a single paper on the subject. I have read Palle’s paper’s and all published public access papers on the sun-climate connection, and participated in a public discussion of the issues in measuring cloud cover with Palle at Realclimate and with Shiva at Realclimate concerning his work on long term GCR changes as the solar system passes through the galaxy plane and planetary ice epochs.

    As I said, it difficult to get funding and to continue to get funding if one does not stay on ‘message’ that the 20th century warming has primarily caused by increases in atmospheric CO2. In the last 5 years there have started to be ‘on message papers’ to dispute the sun-climate connection.

    Do you agree there were past climate changes (warming followed by a cold period of 75 to 150 years) and the past climate changes do correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes?

    The following is the Greenland Ice sheet data that shows the D-O cycle from Richard Alley’s paper.

    The paper you quote noted that is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover, the paper you quoted for reasons which I can only guess, provide no analysis to disprove the hypothesis that solar wind bursts and changes to the solar heliososphere modulate planetary cloud cover. You make the vague unsubstantiated claim that the papers I quote are ‘out dated’.

    The fact is there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climate record. Those cycles of warming and cooling correlate with cosmogenic isotope changes. The summary ‘The Sun-Climate Connection” by John Eddy is only one of hundreds of papers that have noted that fact. What researchers have been struggling with is how the sun causes the large cyclic temperature changes.

    Your comments ak appear to be intended to confuse and are not germane to the issue how did solar changes caused planetary temperature change in the past. The fact is solar changes did cause past climate change cycles.

    If you disagree with that assertion perhaps you can quote a paper and provide some logic to support the counter mechanism. The paper I quoted ‘Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by Georgieva, Bianchi and Kirov specifically explain why the sunspot index does not correlate to planetary temperature in the 20th century.

    Unfortunately, we will have an opportunity to see if the planet does cool due to the current solar magnetic cycle change. We will have a chance to see if there is a sun-climate connection. If you are incorrect, you have a responsibility to assist with addressing the issue of planetary cooling.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years.

    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov

    We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

    The real terrestrial impact of the different solar drivers depends not only on the average geoeffectiveness of a single event but also on the number of events. Figure 5 presents the yearly number of CHs, CMEs and MCs in the period 1992-2002. On the descending phase of the sunspot cycle, the greatest part of high speed solar wind streams affecting the Earth comes from coronal holes (Figure 5), in this period their speed is higher than the speed of the solar wind originating from other regions, and their geoeffectiveness is the highest. Therefore, when speaking about the influence Fig. 4. Solar cycle variations of the average geoeffectiveness of solar wind from CHs, MCs and CMEs.

    Fig. 5. Yearly number of CHs, MCs and CMEs.of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity

    The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from – 0.76 in the period 1868-1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982, while the lag has increased from 0 to 3 years (Vieira et al. 2001). According to Echer et al. (2004), the probable cause seems to be related to the double peak structure of geomagnetic activity.
    The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number.

    In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

  100. I agree with dr Leif Svalgaard when he states that solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks. I too cannot follow the assumptions of Pesnell (“peak in late 2013 and another in 2015″).
    Also it is obvious that the word “maximum” is an ill-defined thing. I even question if it is a meaningful concept if applied to the total SSN.
    The solar activity has to be examined separately on the two hemispheres.
    - Concerning SC14 and SC24: see http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-24-Groups-Months.png
    - Concerning the solar cycles 21-23: http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Immagine-E.jpg
    - I made an update concerning the current SC24: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/SC24_4_13.jpg

    What is important is the maximum of the hemispherical solar activity. In this view the maxima of the SC14 were around Nov 1905 (north) and the beginning of 1908 (south). Transposed to our current solar cycle, this should mean about Nov 2012 and the beginning of 2015.
    The northern polar field reversed already in June 2012 (http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html). This is half a year earlier in comparison with SC14. Some months ago, Leif assumed that the south pole was reversing around December 2012- January 2013. This reversal did not happen! We see only that the solar activity of the south at this moment is tied with the activity of the north. I cannot predict when the reversal of the southern polar field will happen.
    The current solar cycle is not finished at all. Only within about two years we will see how it has evolved.

  101. There is some predictability, but you won’t find it normally in government resources. They already said I was in left field by myself, but I have predicted since Spring of 2008 and my brother can confirm this, when NASA was saying the cycle would be over a 100 count at peak, I said it wouldn’t get over 60 at best. It finished at 57.5.

    Where to I get that being an amateur? I knew Al Gore was lying and I was going to get to the bottom of it. Several years of research is now in my own web site for the “Joe, The Plumber” types who want to know what is going on.

    http://sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com If you don’t want to read my Blah! Blah! Blah!, jump to the charts in the back of my papers

    I am one of three people I know up who have correlated sunspot activity to Accumulated Cyclone Energy . One of those invited me to his hurricane conference. I am returning this year to hear Dr. Mann speak.

    I add to the first page and that is, the Sun spins at about 26.5 days. If there is sunspot activity, we may only feel the affect if it is aimed at us.

    Paul Pierett

  102. I only blinked for a second and it’s gone. Perhaps those Russian scientists are correct.

  103. lsvalgaard says:
    Almost everything has effect. The question is ‘how much’. If the answer is ‘very very little’ the effect is not of interest.

    Agree with that one. To move climate in the N. Hemisphere, it is sufficient to move polar jet stream . There are two sources of energy that regularly do that.
    The first one is described
    here
    The second one is described here
    The first one is correlated to solar activity, the second one appear to be random but it has a strong link with the PDO.
    Combine that with the central Pacific tectonics to move the ENSO, all important elements are there to understand the natural variability.
    To confirm all the correlations there are solar- and geo- magnetic fields data

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm

    To consider or dismiss above, it is a choice open to all.

  104. Most discount the effect of changes in the sun’s output because insolation changes are small ~0.1%. However, I think most are also unaware of how strong the response of climate can be to small changes. Two examples come to mind:

    (A) Northern Tanzania is within 3-5 degrees south of the equator. Because of the earth’s tilt, the sun lies overhead in the winter solstice at ~13 degrees south and in the summer solstice ~10 degrees N. These small angles produce two rainy seasons, the “short” season (Vuli) October to December and the “long” rains (or “Masika) March to May. Moreover, because they start 2-3 months before they reach the extremes of the swing, the actual variation required to cause this “climate change” is ~ half this number of degrees N and S – the tangent of the sun angle is essentially ~0.1 to change from dry to the rains. Of course, the rains mean clouds, so the change in albedo because of these changes makes for much reduced insolation. (would someone like to calculate the difference in insolation per m^2 between the overhead sun and the sun ~10 degrees off overhead?)

    B) Even more remarkable, perhaps, was Willis Eschenbach’s piece on the light wind that is created by the “heat” from a full moon:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/24/sailing-on-the-moon-wind/

    Even knowing of the Tanzanian double rains, the moon wind blew me away!! Please keep in mind that this climate engine is not an iron locomotive. It is an extremely sensitive and responsive thing and 0.1 makes a difference.

  105. IanH says:April 10, 2013 at 3:45 am

    The following article says that there is a link between solar variability and climate through changes in the ITCZ
    Makes sense to me at first glance. Thanks for posting that.

  106. To be clear: the maximum of the hemispherical SSN has to be distinguished from the reversal of polar fields.
    As far as I know:
    - the (temporary?) maximum of the SSN in the northern hemisphere took place in September 2011;
    - the reversal of the northern polar fields took place in June 2012;
    - a very temporary maximum of the SSN in the southern hemisphere happened in April 2012.
    We are awaiting the reversal of the southern polar fields.

  107. SolTer conference

    End of last year, I started talking to a few people about a “solar-terrestrial” conference to be held in 2014. However, after speaking to a few people, the reality began to dawn on me that such a conference would be extremely difficult without the cooperation of some academics – largely because Universities charge an arm and a leg for suitable conference facilities. It all became catch 22 … no one was going to commit to a conference until it was booked, but I personally couldn’t afford to book the conference until people committed to attending.

    But, I’m still interested in the idea, I just can’t see a practical way forward. But just in case anyone is interested, I will give the website address: SolTer.org.uk

  108. Leif

    you may consider a process that is non-predictable to be random [this is the definition of random]. Since we cannot really predict the climate, the climate qualifies as a random process.

    This is rather wrong and misleading. Predictability has not much to do with randomness – determinism has.
    The Lorenz system (forced convection) is described by a perfectly deterministic system of equations. So it is not random. However for certains values of parameters it becomes chaotic and unpredictable.
    As this system is ergodic, it can be shown that there is an invariant probability distribution for the future states. So this system is deterministic and the probability distribution can be predicted even if individual prediction is impossible. It simulates a sort of randomness with a well defined PDF while being deterministic.

    But then you have non ergodic systems and one you should know – the 3 body problem.
    It is deterministic and chaotic. It is also unpredictable beyond a time of some 10 millions years for the Earth.
    However there is no invariant probability distribution so you can’t even predict the probabilities of future states.
    Saying that the future states are “random” just because you can’t know what they will be would mean to equate randomness with ignorance about everything (even about the fact whether well defined probabilities exist) what would be very dangerous.

    As for the climate it is not known to which of the 2 categories it belongs – ergodic like the Lorenz system or non ergodic like the Solar system ?
    The only thing you can be sure is that it is deterministic and chaotic. Certainly not “random”.

  109. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.

    It’s more like a smaller version of Cycle 16!

  110. Someone here posted this study earlier — after reading, it gives some, IMO, plausible mechanisms for D/O, Heinrich, and Bond events — which relate to glacial/interglacial changes. Key is — North Atlantic thermocline circulation changes. It states there are three modes of the N Atlantic circulation — warm mode (like today), cold mode (where the circulation moves well south of NW Europe) and no-flow mode (like the LGM period ~20k yrs ago). Like Dr S says, complex stochastic system changes without the need for intrinsic solar changes (Milankovitch orbital cycles are NOT intrinsic solar changes):

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Nature/rapid.pdf

  111. Leif,
    You may be introducing a bit of confusion on this simple issue of a “double peak” solar cycle, your graph on cycle 14 shows 9 spikes of sunspot numbers above 60, these spikes are not what is meant by a “double peak” during this cycle the magnetic field on the Northern hemisphere is progressing ahead of the magnetic field on the Southern hemisphere, this has led to northern hemisphere to peak asymmetrically before the Southern hemisphere, the term “double peak” fits this observation perfectly well.

    I’m happy with the observations being made during this cycle, the asymmetrical magnetic activity is encouraging for understanding the Planetary Attraction of the Suns Large Magnetic Field, one very important observation I’ve made is the recent gravitation perturbation of Neptune on the orbit of Uranus which Began to occur around 1996, If you understand the how and when Neptune was discovered, you’ll understand that at the time and recently before Hershel’s announcement of Neptune’s discovery there was a similar gravitation perturbation of Uranus approximately around 1817 this has also coincided with Solar Cycles 5,6 and 7 being weaker, it’s not hard to conclude from this observation a link between asymmetrical magnetic activity observed on the surface of the sun and both of these separate gravitational perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, this asymmetrical magnetic activity may last for 2 maybe 3 cycles.

    Fig1. Uranus and Jupiter attracting the suns magnetic field

    The basic principle of what is happening is; the Suns Large Magnetic Field is attracted to the planets, the two main players are Uranus and Jupiter, the Large Magnetic Field attracted to Uranus holds back the suns polar regions and appears to slow them down, The Large Magnetic Field is also attracted Jupiter, its orbit will travel with the Large Magnetic Field attracted to it and along with the rotation of the Sun itself will begin the interaction between the magnetic polarities, when the field becomes wound around the entire surface of the sun the field “short circuits” to form the dark areas or sunspots, as the overlapping magnetic polarities (the large magnetic directional flow of the field) gradually move into close proximity of each other blocking the flow of radiant surface energy in these areas of the photosphere, limiting the amount of radiant surface energy flowing outward, as a result the temperature within the sunspots are at a lower temperature than that of the surrounding layer of the photosphere.

    Fig1. Uranus and Jupiter attracting the suns magnetic field

    During Cycles of asymmetrical magnetic activity, the Suns Large Magnetic Field being Attracted to Uranus is disturbed by the gravitation perturbation of Neptune on the orbit of Uranus which in turn has the effect where the timing separation or misalignment of the Large Magnetic Field causes less frequent interaction of magnetic polarities (the large magnetic directional flow of the field) forming less sunspots during the progression of a solar cycle producing an overall weaker solar.

    This isn’t a gravitational process directly on the sun as when the planets travel around a star, their elliptical planetary orbits produce gravitational (tidal) forces that give our sun a barycentric motion. It is a Large Solar Magnetic Field attracted to planetary bodies, the planetary bodies are gravitationally perturbed by each-other which effects the Suns Large Magnetic field.

  112. Leif,

    We can also fairly accurately reconstruct the timing of Solar cycles going back thousands of years to the earliest observations made by the Chinese and beyond using the planetary gravitation perturbations and know the state of the Large Solar Magnetic Field and the condition of the sun during these times.

    I produced a Jupiter and Uranus Heliocentric showing a 13.8 year step from 1/9/2010 – 14/3/1183 AD. You Can also notice when the Neptune and Uranus gravitation perturbations occur during this time frame.

  113. lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:21 am
    “There is no good evidence of such influence over and above 0.1 degree C, so no need to worry.”

    Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?

    What was the energy transfer rate? because that rate of change per second squared over an 11 year cycle amounts to more than 0.1 degrees C.

  114. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”

    I don’t get this. We’ve already had a peak, haven’t we? Shouldn’t it be a peak in 2012, a valley in 2013, and another peak in late 2013 or 2014.

  115. Sparks says:
    April 10, 2013 at 7:02 am
    Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?
    It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dS/S = dT/T/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C - same thing].

  116. Sparks says:
    April 10, 2013 at 7:02 am
    Did you deduced 0.1 degree C from TSI as a measure of change in TSI over a solar cycle?
    It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dT/T = dS/S/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C - same thing].

  117. Gary Pearse says:
    April 10, 2013 at 5:09 am

    “…most are also unaware of how strong the response of climate can be to small changes (e.g. in solar radiation at the earth’s surface).”

    In the comment above, I invited someone to calculate the difference in watts/sq m that causes annual shifts between two dry seasons and two rainy seasons in northern Tanzania (located ~3-5 degrees south of the equator). I actually overestimated above the minimum swing in sun angle necessary to switch from dry to the beginning of a rainy season. With the location in question at 4S, the maximum swing south at 12S, the rainy season beginning ~ 1/3 the way to the maximum, say, 3 degrees shift in sun angle causes the onset of one of the rainy seasons.

    Assuming insolation on a clear day with the sun directly overhead at (near) the equator of 1000W/m^2, the change to the beginning of one of the wet seasons results with a shift of 3 degrees, the cosine of which is 0.9986 (or 998.6 W/m^2) a change of
    -0.14% in solar radiation. This itself is not the minimum change required. Since there is no mention on the internet that these rainy seasons don’t occur at peak solar in the cycle (every 11 years – although this would be an interesting piece of research to see if the solar cycle has a signature in the Tanzania/Kenya rainfall records), it would seem that <0.1% change could be sufficient to drive the alternating dry and rainy seasons there – along with the formation of clouds to further reduce the insolation. It would seem that 0.1% change does make a difference.

  118. lsvalgaard says:
    April 10, 2013 at 8:13 am

    It is simple: input S = output T. S = aT^4, so dS/S = dT/T/4, so a 0.1% variation in S [TSI] is 0.025% change in T [Temp]. 0.025% of 288K is 0.07 degrees K [or C - same thing].

    Thanks Lief,
    I don’t have a Issue with the math it looks close enough, TSI isn’t a major issue to me, What I was wondering about is the sample rate of energy being measured, would a higher sample rate from say a monthly to a daily or even an hourly rate increase the percentage of change of T?

  119. IanH says

    http://www.marine.usf.edu/PPBlaboratory/paleolab_pdfs/Poore_GRL04.pdf

    Henry says
    To quote here from note 11:
    Changes in solar irradiance are small (0.1%) and it is
    likely that amplification of changes in solar output are
    required to force Earth’s climate (see discussion in Lean
    and Rind [1999]). Recent modeling studies suggest that solar
    variability may be amplified by a variety of processes
    including changes in ozone photochemistry and abundance,
    changes in upper stratospheric winds and changes in oceanic
    thermohaline circulation [e.g., Schindell et al., 1999].

    end quote

    Henry@Ian
    I like this. There is a slight discrepancy in my time for the cycles (88 years versus 100 years) but I can live with that. Earth itself also produces heat which can either delay or quicken the cycles.

    There is indeed a variety of causes that amplifies the current cooling.
    I have been saying this all along.

    In my earlier post I already alluded to the fact that there is more cloud formation at lower latitudes and less cloud formation at higher latitudes, naturally, causing less insolation…..which amplifies the cooling effect.

    The date of ozone depletion started around 1950. It started increasing again in 1995 (Confirmed both on the NH and on the SH). There are some other HxOx and NOx compounds also formed there by the EUV, on TOA, which presumably also started decreasing and increasing around these dates. In effect this leads to more back radiation of FUV – this is probably the main factor that is causing the cooling effect and the cooling climate as it affects the amount of energy going into the oceans (water absorbs in the UV region).

    The 1950 and 1995 dates are confirmed by my own a-c wave….a warming cycle started in or around 1950 and a cooling round began in or around 1995.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    So there you got it, Ian.
    We agree.
    There is some climate change.
    But it all happens naturally.

  120. Hoser says:
    April 9, 2013 at 11:56 pm
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:39 am

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 9, 2013 at 10:24 am
    Pesnell is dead wrong.
    REPLY: Care to explain why? – Anthony
    The correct statement he should have made is “solar cycles (especially low ones) often have several peaks”.

    When one peak is due to spot counts reaching a maximum in the northern hemisphere and the second peak is due to spot counts in the southern hemisphere reaching their maximum at a different time, then the double peak observation is clearly not due to a smoothing artifact.

    ======================================================================

    Now I have a question, if two peaks separated quite faraway like the last cycle, does it mean we will have a long cycle 24?

  121. There aren’t many papers on the effect of UV on climate, at least that I can find. Most with UV as a subject concern it’s linkage with ozone. Here is one from 1979.

    “Good empirical correlations have been obtained between variations in solar activity and climate on time scales on the order of a week (1) and a century (2,3). Also, such solar terrestrial relationships have been suspected for periods equal to once and twice the 11 year sunspot cycle (4,5). However, the physical mechanisms that are responsible for such connections
    remain unknown, despite a number of plausible suggestions 116.7. .”

    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979LPICo.390…10B

  122. (Moderator: My apologies for the bad URLs – this one works, please delete the bad posts. Thx)

    There aren’t many papers on the effect of UV on climate, at least that I can find. Most with UV as a subject concern it’s linkage with ozone. Here is one from 1979.

    “Good empirical correlations have been obtained between variations in solar activity and climate on time scales on the order of a week (1) and a century (2,3). Also, such solar terrestrial relationships have been suspected for periods equal to once and twice the 11 year sunspot cycle (4,5). However, the physical mechanisms that are responsible for such connections
    remain unknown, despite a number of plausible suggestions 116.7. .”

    http://tinyurl.com/cxsea87

  123. Jim2 says

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/09/current-solar-cycle-data-seems-to-be-past-the-peak/#comment-1271421

    henry@jim2
    I did some work on this with my own tables and graphs and my conclusion was that all warming of earth observed since 1927 was natural.
    Namely, the global temp. record before that time is murky due to calibration issues and human dependent observations. We are looking at only a few tenths of a degree K difference and the accuracy of thermometers was not that good. If anyone says that this is not so, why not provide me with the calibration certificates of thermometers before 1925?
    There is no man made global warming.
    Everything depends on what happens on the sun.
    It was MADE like that.
    Live with it.

  124. Sparks says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:06 am
    would a higher sample rate from say a monthly to a daily or even an hourly rate increase the percentage of change of T?
    The total solar output is measured [sampled is not quite the right word] every 50 seconds…

  125. @ lsvalgaard says: April 10, 2013 at 11:53 am
    They also show UV irradiance, which is the cause in question.

  126. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    1. I cannot go back in time at WFT because HADCRUT4GL is there only from 1850 so it is quite pointless argument – also because there is no reliable instrumental global surface air temperature composite before 1850.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

    back to 1753, and don’t use WFT. There are other ways.

    2. There’s an obvious purpose why to work with the whole solar cycles if we use long running average smoothing, so I think it is not cherry-picking. (if you make any linear trend beginning and ending at ad-hoc nodes with SNN, you can obtain very dubious results)
    If it is a running average you can use a window of 11 years, one cycle.

    • lsvalgaard says:
      April 10, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      1. thanks for the data, I’ll see what I can get from it, but the uncertainities look to me too high for getting something really convincing.
      2. Yes, it works, but I would rather use the solar cycle length average for the given period.

  127. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    5. …temperature decline since the SC22 peak, because we since then objectively experience ~0.85W/m2 decline trend of the TSI and since the peak of the SC23 even ~1.2W/m2 decline trend – as you can see when examining TSI data SC22peak-SC24peak and ~0.75W/m2 decline trend is also visible from the SC22 end to the SC23 end
    The decline in PMOD TSI is not real, it is an artifact caused by uncompensated degradation of the instrument, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Diff-PMOD-SORCE.png. TSI has not declined since accurate measurements by SORCE TIM began in 2003, in fact TSI is now the highest ever measured by SORCE/TIM http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png

  128. Leif,
    The total solar output is measured [sampled is not quite the right word] every 50 seconds…

    I worked that out to be one hertz, just a thought, wouldn’t that be 1.5% change of 288K? is that right ?.

  129. Sparks says:
    April 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm
    “The total solar output is measured [sampled is not quite the right word] every 50 seconds…”
    I worked that out to be one hertz, just a thought, wouldn’t that be 1.5% change of 288K? is that right ?.

    No, that is 0.02 Hz, and your ‘change’ is about apples and oranges [or perhaps coconuts].

  130. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    2. Yes, it works, but I would rather use the solar cycle length average for the given period.
    The average length is 11.1 years, but since it varies several years it makes little sense to try to be fancy about it. You might use an ‘elastic’ length that varies from cycle to cycle, but that is harder to do [and won't improve matters much - all of this have been tried many times].

    • lsvalgaard says:
      April 10, 2013 at 5:40 pm
      “The average length is 11.1 years”
      The average solar cycle length for the period of the SC1-23 is 11.03 years – it’s quite easy to tell:
      (2009-1755.25)/23 =11.03 years
      but you’re right it doesn’t much matter – next time it can be already 11.1, who knows – but in such a case we would have the second longest cycle :)

  131. Leif,
    I thought that was wrong, why is one sample took every 50 seconds, what is the clever reason?

  132. Sparks says:
    April 10, 2013 at 5:56 pm
    I thought that was wrong, why is one sample took every 50 seconds, what is the clever reason?
    Would I ever tell you something that is wrong? :-)
    What they do is integrate the signal for 50 seconds, then read it [and divide by 50 to get Watts, which is per second]

  133. Perhaps more study needs to be invested in what changes in the heliosphere occur during active, and less active periods of sun activity. We have research that a less active sun does have effects on earth’s magnetic fields, so would it stand to reason that perhaps a less active sun might experience changes in its heliosphere. How much less energy does the entire system suffer and what about outside influences? Measurements of direct solar activity may or may not be the be all end all of the energy budget we receive from the sun. I believe if you were to research interesting changes on our sister planets, there would be no lack of evidence that the sun does indeed have a pretty big effect on our environment here on Earth even though we may not even have the technology to discover it yet. Its true.. TSI varies very little, but then since the entire Global warming hockey stick was on a graph less than 2 degrees, and the whole co2 thing is in Parts per million…. 0.000000 .. these days a little means a lot:P

    I find the whole science with blinders on thing extremely frustrating. We as humans prove over and over again that we do not have the foresight enough to second guess nature… we always seem to fall prey to unforeseen circumstances. When you state irrevocably the sun is not a factor in our warming or cooling planetary changes.. it makes you seem very short sighted because you cannot explain them by any other means. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. it may just be a duck.

    PS my bet for this solar cycle is average length, but I am going from the time when it was “supposed” to start during the mostly spotless year. As for double peaks.. activity is so low, it wouldn’t take much would it.

  134. It seems to me that comparing with SC14 is questionable. There was no L&P effect happening at the time. L&P could decrease the chances for more peaks.

  135. pkatt says:
    April 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. it may just be a duck.
    But that is the problem: it does not. Many people believe it limbs along like a duck, but it doesn’t when you look a bit more closely. Check the exchanges with tumetuestumefaisdubien1 upthread.

  136. William Astley says:
    April 9, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    ++++++
    Thank you for your input here. I tend to be skeptical of Leif’s certainty that TSI is the end all and only has a 0.1C affect on our overall climate. No question he is brilliant. But his strong opinions do not convince me that the sun has little affect on our climate. There is too much good evidence that it’s more complex than simply TSI. That no one has convinced Leif does not make it untrue.

    No one here can tell me why gravity works, but we can be certain that it exists reliably 100% of the time.

    One thing I’ve not heard in the cosmic ray argument is that it seems most pronounced when we are within one of the spiral legs of our galaxy. When we are in between those spirals, there is much less cosmic activity that can reach us when the sun goes quiet.

  137. Many people were saying back in around 2009 on Fox News that we were heading towards cooler climate… all while the overzealous AGW proponents were sure it was worse than we expected. I am excited at the notion that cooling or lack of warming may continue for some years to come. I’d rather suffer from whatever nature brings us (cooler climate) than be plagued by the control of liars claiming science as a political weapon to destroy our prosperity now. It has done nothing but transfer our wealth to those liars at the expense mostly of the poorest people. I will be OK, as I’ve saved for a rainy day and live below my means.

    The needless suffering of the poor by the left wing politicians who will be in power because the poor believe left wing politicians have their best interests in mind is a self fulfilling prophecy it seems.

  138. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    Too short period of TIM operation to say anything about long trends – and I’m quite not sure now with the TIM, because the TSI departure up on your 2nd picture looks to me quite very suspicious too.
    What do you mean ‘suspicious’? TIM data is very accurate.

    as the PMOD at WFT is with the last values from the mid 2011 some 4+W/m2 higher than TIM in the same period
    There is a 4.5 W/m2 difference which is due to extra scattered light for PMOD [and all other TSI measurements except TIM]. This is a pure artifact: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010GL045777.pdf

    Moreover if I look into the TIM data little deeper it doesn’t look to me one can tell with sufficient certainty the TIM is now measuring higher TSI than at the beginning of of the data from Feb 2003.
    2003 March 1361.35
    2013 March 1361.58
    The instrument precision is 0.07 W/m2 for a single measurement. The monthly mean is much better determined.

    ~0.7W/m2 decline trend between SC23beginning and SC24beginning – which are still quite very considerable numbers…
    Slide 29 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf [provided by the PMOD team] shows that there is no difference between the two ‘beginnings’ .

    Mario Lento says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    One thing I’ve not heard in the cosmic ray argument is that it seems most pronounced when we are within one of the spiral legs of our galaxy. When we are in between those spirals, there is much less cosmic activity that can reach us when the sun goes quiet.
    Then read this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf
    “It has already been shown by Overholt et al (2009) that the peaks and troughs in the Shaviv distribution do not correspond to crossings of the Spiral Arms in the Galaxy. Here we show that the estimated intensity variations from the Shaviv distribution are also unrealistic, if we use conventional assumptions of the GCR parameters. We conclude therefore that the use of this model to claim that there is palaeontological evidence for a connection between cosmic rays and the climate is unjustified, unless some of the conventional assumptions of GCR parameters are wrong. Added to our earlier analysis of the near contemporary GCR and Global temperature measurements (Erlykin et al 2009a and 2009b) which showed no evidence for a GCR-climate link we conclude that there is no hard evidence for such a link.”

  139. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:44 pm
    “The average length is 11.1 years”
    The average solar cycle length for the period of the SC1-23 is 11.03 years

    And for all known cycles the last 400 years it is 11.07 i.e. 11.1 to one decimal place.

  140. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:13 pm
    and I’m quite not sure now with the TIM, because the TSI departure up on your 2nd picture looks to me quite very suspicious too.
    TIM data are the best there is. Apparently, you thinks that when data do not fit your opinion, they are ‘suspicious’.

    as the PMOD at WFT is with the last values from the mid 2011 some 4+W/m2 higher than TIM
    PMOD and all other TSI instruments except TIM suffer from extra scattered light due to a construction flaw, so are all artificially too high by about 4.5 W/m2

    Moreover if I look into the TIM data little deeper it doesn’t look to me one can tell with sufficient certainty the TIM is now measuring higher TSI than at the beginning of of the data from Feb 2003.
    2003 March 1361.35
    2013 March 1361.58

    ~0.7W/m2 decline trend between SC23beginning and SC24beginning – which are still quite very considerable numbers…
    There is no difference between the two ‘beginnings’, see e.g. slide 29 [provided by the PMOD team] of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

    Mario Lento says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    One thing I’ve not heard in the cosmic ray argument is that it seems most pronounced when we are within one of the spiral legs of our galaxy. When we are in between those spirals, there is much less cosmic activity that can reach us when the sun goes quiet.
    Not so, read http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf
    “It has already been shown by Overholt et al (2009) that the peaks and troughs in the Shaviv distribution do not correspond to crossings of the Spiral Arms in the Galaxy. Here we show that the estimated intensity variations from the Shaviv distribution are also unrealistic, if we use conventional assumptions of the GCR parameters. We conclude therefore that the use of this model to claim that there is palaeontological evidence for a connection between cosmic rays and the climate is unjustified, unless some of the conventional assumptions of GCR parameters are wrong. Added to our earlier analysis of the near contemporary GCR and Global temperature measurements (Erlykin et al 2009a and 2009b) which showed no evidence for a GCR-climate link we conclude that there is no hard evidence for such a link.”

    • lsvalgaard says:
      April 11, 2013 at 12:39 am
      “TIM data are the best there is. Apparently, you thinks that when data do not fit your opinion, they are ‘suspicious’.”
      That’s just apparence, I know they should be quite accurate. But you didn’t provide any explanation of the departure up, so it is what I’m suspicious about.

      “This is a pure artifact”
      Obviously, nobody sane would expect it is real in terms of the real solar TSI/energy flux values.

      “2003 March 1361.35
      2013 March 1361.58″
      faintly I remember there seeing some 1361.7x in a row following the expected decline at the begining of the record in Feb2003 and also monthly averages 1367.7x somewhere in 2011 and 2012 if I remember it well. But nothing overtly important obviously when we talk about 0.23W/m2 different monthly values in the set with ~2W/m2 scatter at the peak sides (if I don’t count the obvious anomalies) and if we don’t have similarly accurate uninterrupted record before 2003 for really reliable comparison usefule for the trend analysis

      “There is no difference between the two ‘beginnings”
      But it doesn’t mean there’s no trend, the solar cycles aren’t symetrical.
      for illustration:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1996.4/to:2009/plot/pmod/from:1996.4/to:2009/trend

      looks to me the trend means the relative energy flux per time rising during the progress of the cycle into its peak was more than cancelled during the progress from the peak to the end i.e. the average energy flux per time was relatively descending during the course of the whole cycle with the given linear trend minus your TIM/PMOD 0.04W/m2 correction. I hope I explain it in an understandable way, I’m not an English native. The values at the beginning and the end of the given period don’t much matter for linear OLS trends in my opinion. What I think matters is the relative activity/energy delivered per time and the speed of the changes over time of the same, which I think matter if too sharp and new equilibrium must be then established under stressed timespan, than if the trend is not changing. For example there’s almost no SIDC-SSN linear trend between say peak of the SC17 and the end of the SC22 (although there is the intermitent decline in the SC20 and then again rise). But then the things quite really rapidly change and the average SSN falls more than 100% during just one Hale cycle. And I note that I don’t consider the SSN being only an indicator of the TSI/energy delivered at 1 AU before it was measured by the TIM and like. I think it indicates also the changes in the solar spectra, which in my opinion can have some relevance for the climate changes, including the slight changes of the average surface temperature.

      I think there’s a whole complex of terrestrial and celestial factors driving the climate changes, sometimes maybe quite dramatical, since this planet came into the existence and it can’t be reduced just to the relation of (anthropogenicaly enhanced) GHEAverage Surface Temperature or SolarActivity measured in TSIAverage Surface Temperature. In my opinion the Average Surface Temperature doesn’t matter too much, there are much bigger local seasonal fluctuations and people live in very different climatic conditions all the way down from the subpolar regions to the equator, from the lowland to the high mountains, from the seaside to the depths of the continent inlands…nor matters the anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels, which will anyway get depleted in just couple of decades and the “problem” will solve itself – much sooner than comes the time the Hansens and like make their eschatological prophecies of prolonged trends for, sometimes trying to virtually selfulfil them sooner using their “adjustments”, “station migrations” and mainstreamized hysteria about the “tipping points” at the runaways to their Venus driving sometimes maybe even contraproductive measures. The depletion itself will be The Problem – what we do to substitute for it? All this technological civilization of billions of people runs on it and as we know the entropy rises geometrically in a closed system… And I would think there are other anthropogenic factors which can change the climate especially on the local and semilocal basis, impede the biosphere and the CO2 sinks, but I don’t think they can have global climate impact if not globally orchestrated as the catastrophe with the biofuels for example, pollution with persistent toxines of both land and ocean, pollution of biosphere with locally alien or even engineered transgenic organisms, depletion of the soil and deforestation etc. Although I think there also can be anthropogenic factors how to make life better, it depends on using more reason and less aggression, depth of wisdom not blissful ignorance. I think the resources wasted for the nonsensical CO2 emissions mitigation can itself cause a problem – as again the biofuels for example or the inflation of the subsidized photoelectric and wind farms, which hardly cover the losses in the grid, have unreliable output, which anyway must be offsetted and nobody knows what to do with them when their very limited lifetime ends – the resources should be used for something less vain than for centralized attempts to “save the world” from 0,x°C temperature rise while providing people with neverending heated disputations about tripe and cobblers to make them even dafter then they already are…
      Sorry for the rant I couldn’t help myself

  141. In reply to
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 11, 2013 at 12:39 am

    Mario Lento says:
    April 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm
    One thing I’ve not heard in the cosmic ray argument is that it seems most pronounced when we are within one of the spiral legs of our galaxy. When we are in between those spirals, there is much less cosmic activity that can reach us when the sun goes quiet.
    Not so, read http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf

    Is this the Overholt you are referring to?
    TESTING THE LINK BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND GALACTIC SPIRAL ARM TRANSIT BY Andrew Carl Overholt, Submitted to the graduate degree program in Physics and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of Science.

    It should be noted that Shaviv measured the magnitude of the change in GCR and the timing of the change in GCR by analyzing meteoroid fragments. (i.e. There is analytical data to support his assertion.) As we cannot directly observe the Milky Way the models of the Milky Way are theoretical. An expert on galaxy structure which Overholt is not, stated that Shaviv’s assumptions are reasonable and that our knowledge of the Milky Way is not sufficient to prove or disprove Shaviv’s assumptions. It should be noted that Shaviv’s meteoroid analysis showed that the long period increases in GCR correlated with the timing of the ice ages.
    It should be noted that Shaviv’s hypothesis (A hypothesis that resolves other paradoxes, is support for assertion that the hypothesis is valid) explains why there are periods during the Ice Epoches of 10s of millions of years when the planet is cold (ice sheets) and atmospheric CO2 is high and periods. There are also periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is low and the planet is very warm.
    Again, the paper you link does not disprove the sun-climate hypothesis, it states it is unlikely for GCR to increase as much as Nir Shaviv stated, however, Shaviv’s assumption is consistent with published work, with textbooks, and with his meteoroid analysis.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209252

    Shaviv’s hypothesis also helps to explain the faint sun paradox.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477.pdf

    The paper you linked has a second logical point, it states that planetary temperature does not correlate with GCR, 2009, which is correct. It did however prior 1993 and did for a period of 20 years. If the paper you linked to was interested in solving a scientific problem, they would have noted the 20 years of correlation and then noted the correlation suddenly breaks in the 1990’s.

    It should be noted that the assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar magnetic cycle is not new. The solar observer Herschel noted that the price of wheat correlated with the solar magnetic cycle. The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested. The question is what is causing the observation?

    What changed post 1993 and what changed in solar cycle 24? What is the physical reason for what is observed?
    First question did the sun change. Yes.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml

    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
    Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

    The paper you linked to states that a lack of correlation post 1993 proves GCR levels do not modulate planetary cloud cover which is not correct. There are two different additional mechanisms involved. The first mechanism is solar wind bursts. Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes ions. Now even though GCR is high, if the solar wind bursts occur they remove the cloud forming ions and make it appear that planetary clouds are not modulate by GCR levels. See Palle’s paper. (See figure 2. Note low level clouds are reduced by minus 0.065% per year, starting in about 1993.)

    http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1264.pdf

    Fig. 2 shows the global annual averages of GCR induced ionization in the atmosphere and low cloud amounts for the period July 1983–June 2000 (ionization data is only updated to December 2000). A quick look at the data reveals the good agreement between those two quantities from 1983 to 1994, however, from 1995 to 2000 the correspondence breaks. … ….However, it is worth mentioning that the new release of ISCCP data covers precisely the period 1995 onward, and increasing the mean level of the new data by only +1% would return the correlation coefficient to 0.89 (99.9% significance level). Some authors have suggested that the new (post-1994) ISCCP data may have a calibration error (Marsh and Svensmark, 2003), however, no such error has been reported by the ISCCP team so far. (William: Palle’s paper goes not to develop an explanation for what is observed. The explanation is that solar wind bursts are removing cloud forming ions. Palle’s paper also notes there is symmetry of the cloud observations North/South hemisphere which supports the assertion that cloud measurement is real and not a measurement problem.)

    The second process, considered by Tinsley and Yu (2003), namely electroscavenging, depends on the action of the global electrical circuit (see review by Rycroft et al. (2000)). The transport of charge by rapidly rising convective currents in the tropics and over continental land masses leads to an approx. 200 kV positive charge of the ionosphere compared to Earth. This large voltage difference, in turn, necessitates a return current which must pass through the regions of the atmosphere where clouds are formed.

    Thus the electroscavenging process can explain several of the most striking features of Fig. 5, namely: (1) the peak in significant positive correlations at latitudes around 50 degrees North and South (Fig. 5a); (2) the tendency for a less significant but nonetheless evident trend to negative correlation coefficients at low latitudes (Fig. 5a); and (3) the location of the peak in correlation over one of the principal oceans, namely over the North and South Atlantic (Fig. 5c). (William: What Palle is noting the regions where there is a change in cloud cover is the regions where the electroscavenging process is predicted to be strongest.)

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
    5. The Global Electric Circuit and Electroscavenging
    5a. Modulation of Jz in the global circuit.
    The global electric circuit was illustrated pictorially in Figure 3.1, and a schematic circuit diagram is given in Figure 5.1. General properties of the circuit have been reviewed by Bering et al. [1998[. Earlier comprehensive reviews have been given by NAS [1986] and Israël [1973]. The polar potential pattern is superimposed on the thunderstorm-generated potentials. In a given high latitude region the overhead ionospheric potential, Vi is the sum of the thunderstorm-generated potential and the superimposed magnetosphere-ionosphere generated potential for that geomagnetic latitude and geomagnetic local time. During magnetic storms the changes in Vi from the mean can be as high as 30% within regions extending up to 30ーof latitude out from the geomagnetic poles [Tinsley et al.1998]. As indicated in Figure 5.1, horizontal potential differences of order 100 kV are generated, high on the dawn side and low on the dusk side, producing corresponding changes in Vi and Jz. The dawn-dusk potential difference has a strong dependency on the product of the solar wind velocity, vsw, and the Bz(GSM) north-south solar wind magnetic field component [Boyle et al., 1997].

    You link to a paper that stated it is difficult to measure planetary cloud cover. It should be noted that during the period of warming, there is a reduction in planetary clouds, indirectly inferred as there is a reduction in short wave radiation reflected off into space.
    Also it should be noted that Palle observed the change reflected radiation by studying brightness changes in the moon. Palle’s moonshine paper results support his satellite data paper results. The problem is not Palle’s analysis or the data Palle used for the analysis, the problem is Palle’s results indicate a majority of the 20th century warming was caused by planetary cloud cover changes not increases in atmospheric CO2.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html

    Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000 All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

  142. The correlation between temperature and solar activity does fall off around 1980. Perhaps the last 30 years of temperature anomalies have been fiddled with.

  143. Henry@Sunspot
    It is true that continuous temperature readings (every second) with automatic recording started in most weather stations only towards the middle of seventies. So before that it depended on people taking hourlly or four hourly readings.
    Frequently there were gaps in readings….

  144. Effect of charged particles on the weather of Saturn.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-130&cid=release_2013-130

    “They surmised that charged water particles from the planet’s rings were being drawn towards the planet along Saturn’s magnetic field lines and were neutralizing the glowing triatomic hydrogen ions. This leaves large “shadows” in what would otherwise be a planet-wide infrared glow. These shadows cover some 30 to 43 percent of the planet’s upper atmosphere surface from around 25 to 55 degrees latitude. This is a significantly larger area than suggested by images from NASA’s Voyager mission. “

  145. William Astley says:
    April 11, 2013 at 3:19 am
    It should be noted that Shaviv measured the magnitude of the change in GCR and the timing of the change in GCR by analyzing meteoroid fragments.
    Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.

    The paper you linked has a second logical point, it states that planetary temperature does not correlate with GCR, 2009, which is correct. It did however prior 1993 and did for a period of 20 years. If the paper you linked to was interested in solving a scientific problem, they would have noted the 20 years of correlation and then noted the correlation suddenly breaks in the 1990’s.
    That correlations break down when new data becomes available is the standard result of correlations that were spurious [i.e. not representing physical reality] to begin with. The paper makes that point well.

    The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.
    That paper and I [for that matter] contest that strongly. Of course, true believers cannot contest anything that is contrary to their beliefs.

    If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.
    The Earth rings just prior to every solar minimum, see slides 17 and 18 of http://www.leif.org/research/Historical%20Solar%20Cycle%20Context.pdf

    All your ranting about electroscavenging is just desperate attempts to rescue a failed correlation. “Solar bursts” occur all the time and not just the last two decades.

    tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    April 11, 2013 at 6:39 am
    But you didn’t provide any explanation of the departure up, so it is what I’m suspicious about.
    http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf slide 7 shows the situation last year, now we can add the data for 2013 and sure enough they confirm the discrepancy.

    But nothing overtly important obviously when we talk about 0.23W/m2 different monthly values in the set with ~2W/m2 scatter at the peak sides (if I don’t count the obvious anomalies) and if we don’t have similarly accurate uninterrupted record before 2003 for really reliable comparison useful for the trend analysis
    In a yearly average the scatter is very much reduced. You can compare the fit for SC23 and note how little scatter they is in yearly averages. Now, the shoe should be on the other foot: all the people that claims that the solar influence influence is ‘uncontested’ suffer the same problem that trends are not well-defined, yet choose to gloss over that

    “There is no difference between the two ‘beginnings”
    But it doesn’t mean there’s no trend, the solar cycles aren’t symetrical.

    What it means is that there is no trend in the minimum values, regardless of asymmetry of the cycle.

    I think it indicates also the changes in the solar spectra, which in my opinion can have some relevance for the climate changes, including the slight changes of the average surface temperature.
    These changes have been considered and only very small effects [less than 0.1 degrees] were the result, e.g. slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf

    Sorry for the rant I couldn’t help myself
    Ranting is a sign of emotional attachment to a viewpoint and as such is understandable [c.f. William's desperate rants], but does not further understanding and science.

  146. Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta says:
    April 11, 2013 at 7:06 am
    Effect of charged particles on the weather of Saturn.
    No, effect on Saturn’s ionosphere. This is not ‘weather’ anymore than the aurorae on Earth is.

  147. In reply to:

    lsvalgaard says:
    April 11, 2013 at 9:26 am
    William Astley says:
    April 11, 2013 at 3:19 am

    William said:
    It should be noted that Shaviv measured the magnitude of the change in GCR and the timing of the change in GCR by analyzing meteoroid fragments.

    lsvalgaard said:
    Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.

    William: Reference? Shaviv’s paper provide analytical data to support the assertion there is agreement in time of occurrence (There is an increase in GCR when each ice epoch occurred, there is not a reduction in atmospheric CO2 when one of the ice epochs occurs, so there is no counter hypothesis) and estimates the increase in GCR to be 30% based on the meteoroid analysis. You ignore the logical point that Shaviv’s mechanism is required to explain the faint sun paradox. The faint sun paradox is the solar output was roughly 30% less than current 4.5 billion years ago yet there is unequivocal evidence of that there was liquid water on the earth. The solution to the faint sun paradox is that solar winds were stronger for the young sun which reduced GCR. Reduced GCR resulted in less planetary clouds which compensated for the 30% less TSI.

    http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/ClimateDebate/RahmReply/RahmReply.html

    Reconstructing cosmic ray fluxes
    Moreover, independent evidence in the Iron meteorite data, based on comparison of different exposure dating methods, clearly shows that the CRF over the past 10 Ma must have been 30% higher than was the average over the past 1000 Ma [Lavielle et al. 1999]. If it was variable recently, it is unlikely that it was constant before. Plus, the astronomical understanding of the origin and diffusion of cosmic rays in the galaxy predicts that the CRF should be variable. It is therefore not surprising that it is observed, as predicted, in the meteoritic data

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0306477.pdf

    Towards a Solution to the Early Faint Sun Paradox: A LowerCosmic Ray Flux from a Stronger Solar Wind by Nir Shaviv
    lsvalgaard said:
    All your ranting about electroscavenging is just desperate attempts to rescue a failed correlation. “Solar bursts” occur all the time and not just the last two decades.
    William: Please sir, do not attempt to use Ad hominem to substitute for logic and data. You and I are both gentlemen. I quoted papers that outline the electroscavenging mechanism and papers that provide observation data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused initially by higher GCR and then later in the cycle by an increase in high speed solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycles. Yes, solar wind burst have occurred in other cycles. The question is the magnitude and number of the solar wind bursts and the period when the strong solar wind bursts occur. Normally at the end of the solar cycle as the heliosphere weakens which results in higher GCR, planetary clouds would increase and the planet would cool. Now if there are exceptionally strong solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycle, the solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions which is called by the specialists in the field of sun-climate mechanisms ‘electroscavenging’. You state that solar wind bursts occur in other cycles which is true, but not relevant to this discussion, as I did not state solar wind bursts do not occur in other cycles. The question is how to quantify the magnitude, number, and time of occurrence of the solar wind bursts.

    I note that you are ignoring the paper that I quote which shows there is tight correlation of changes in planetary temperature and the occurrence and magnitude of solar wind bursts. Everyone plots the number of sunspots vs changes in planetary temperature to try to prove or disprove the sun-climate connection. The paper I quoted ‘Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by K. Georgieva et al. noted sunspot number misses the very important number and magnitude of solar wind bursts. The analysis goes in circles if the electroscavenging mechanism is ignored.

    That paper shows that there is very tight correlation of planetary temperature changes to the number and magnitude of solar wind bursts for the period of time 1856 to 2000, a 144 year period! That is astonishing. Surely it is not a coincident that planetary temperature changes (up and down) correlated to the magnitude and number of solar wind bursts for 144 years?

    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf

    (Sorry, you must copy and paste the above link in to your browser to see this paper.)
    From the paper ‘ Once again about global warming and solar activity’ by K. Georgieva et al.
    “The second peak, related to high speed solar wind from coronal holes, seems to have increased relative to the first one, related to sunspots (CMEs) but, as already mentioned, this type of solar activity is not accounted for by the sunspot number. In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decade. So the sunspot number is not a good indicator of solar activity, and using the sunspot number leads to the under-estimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming.
    Fig. 6. Global temperature anomalies T (solid line) and ak index of geomagnetic activity (broken line) for the period 1856-2000; climatic normals.”

    You quote one paper that states it is difficult to measure cloud cover. The paper you quote ends with the conclusion that the majority of the 20th century warming was therefore due to increase in atmospheric CO2. I provided a link to two different papers that both support the assertion that the 20th century warming was caused by a reduction in planetary cloud cover. The first paper noted that short wave radiation reflected off into space decreased in the 20th century, based on satellite measurement. The second paper by Palle noted that the brightness of the moon which is determined by the amount of radiation that reflected and emitted off the earth decreased which is also consist with a reduction in planetary cloud cover.
    The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
    “ The major change in albedo occurred between the early measurements and those that are the most recent. For the 1994/1995 period, we obtain a mean albedo of 0.310 0.004, while for the more recent period, 1999/2001, the albedo is 0.295 0.002. The combined difference in the mean A between the former and latter periods is of )0.015 0.005, assuming the 1994/1995 and 1999/2001 uncertainties are independent. This corresponds to a 2% decrease in the albedo between the two periods.”

    http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf

    William said:
    We and everyone else agrees the planet warmed in the 20th century. The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.

    lsvalgaard said:
    That paper and I [for that matter] contest that strongly. Of course, true believers cannot contest anything that is contrary to their beliefs.
    William: You and the paper you quote may contest the assertion but you ignore the multiple papers that provide specific observational data and analysis to support the assertion that there is a very strong sun-climate connection. As I said in a formal debate and if the scientist is interesting in solving a problem it is necessary to address and explain all of the observations. The paper you quoted states it is difficult to measure cloud cover and ignores the electroscavenging mechanism which explains why planetary temperature does not correlate to GCR intensity for a period of the analysis.
    I do not understand how anyone can contest the fact that the ‘Little Ice Age’ correlates with the Maunder minimum and the past warm periods correlate with high periods of solar magnetic cycle activity as noted in the paper by John Eddy. The fact that there is correlation of cosmogenic isotope changes over and over with past warming events which are followed by cooling events is astonishing. The sun is causing the climate changes. The sun is a serial climate changer. What other specific mechanism explains the observations? Why is there cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every warming and cooling period?
    Look at the Greenland ice core data from Richard Alley’s paper.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory

    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.

    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the
    southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.

    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on
    climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.

  148. William Astley says:
    April 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    Those fragments show that the cosmic ray flux has not varied more than 10%. Furthermore the timing was shown to be incorrect.
    William: Reference?

    Wieler et al. (2011) showed from meteorite data that in the last 10 Ma the GCR intensity has not varied by more than 10%.
    Wieler, R. Beer, J. and Leya, I. ’The Galactic Cosmic Ray Intensity over the past 10^6 to 10^9 years as recorded by Cosmogenic Nuclides in Meteorite and Terrestrial Samples’ Space Sci. Rev., DOI 10.1007/s 11214-011-9769-9 (2011)

    You ignore the logical point that Shaviv’s mechanism is required to explain the faint sun paradox.
    Not ‘required’, There are other explanations, e.g. GHG. For more on the ‘paradox’: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011RG000375.pdf
    “[106] It has been hypothesized that a decrease in the cosmic ray flux due to the stronger solar wind of the young Sun would decrease cloudiness and thus provide additional warming to early Earth [Shaviv, 2003]. For the present-day climate, however, the cosmic ray hypothesis could not be verified using satellite observations of cloud cover [e.g., Kristjánsson et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2010]. [107] The most comprehensive assessment of the effects of clouds on the early Earth’s climate has recently been undertaken by Goldblatt and Zahnle [2011]. They find that removing all low clouds (which increases the albedo, but not the greenhouse effect) yields a forcing of DF =25W/m2 and thus only about half the climate forcing required to offset the faint early Sun (DF ≈ 60 W/m2 and DF ≈ 40 W/m2 for the Early and Late Archean, respectively), while more realistic reductions of low cloud cover result in
    forcings of DF =10–15 W/m2″

    I quoted papers that outline the electroscavenging mechanism and papers that provide observation data to support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused initially by higher GCR and then later in the cycle by an increase in high speed solar wind bursts at the end of the solar cycles.I did not state solar wind bursts do not occur in other cycles. The question is how to quantify the magnitude, number, and time of occurrence of the solar wind bursts.
    It is ranting because the arguments do not hang together.

    I note that you are ignoring the paper that I quote
    And for good reasons as it is particularly bad and full of misconceptions [which you seem to share, e.g. about ak]. For example it is a deadly sin to compute correlations using smoothed values as they do for Figure 6.

    You quote one paper that states it is difficult to measure cloud cover. The paper you quote ends with the conclusion that the majority of the 20th century warming was therefore due to increase in atmospheric CO2.
    It does not make sense to count up the number of papers on either side of the debate and determine the outcome by comparing counts. The quality of the papers count, and as Einstein said “it only takes one to prove me wrong”.

    The assertion that planetary temperature changes correlate with the solar cycle is not contested.
    Here is someone who contests that: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/ “Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend”.
    Now, there is a subtlety here: the temperature DOES correlate with the solar cycle, but at the 0.1 degree level. This is presumably not what you liked to refer to.

    The paper you quoted states it is difficult to measure cloud cover
    Yet, you claimed a 94% correlation for 1976-1994 [or so]. So you accept that the data is good enough.

    ignores the electroscavenging mechanism which explains why planetary temperature does not correlate to GCR intensity for a period of the analysis.
    Since the cosmic ray variations and the ‘solar bursts’ occur in all solar cycles you cannot with good conscience claim that they only apply when the correlation fails.

    I do not understand how anyone can contest the fact that the ‘Little Ice Age’ correlates with the Maunder minimum and the past warm periods correlate with high periods of solar magnetic cycle activity as noted in the paper by John Eddy.
    That you cannot understand something does not mean that it has to be false [or true]. At the time of Eddy’s 1976 paper it was thought that TSI could vary 1-2% [based on Abbot's measurements] and that could give a temperature effect of about 1 degree. When it turned out that the variation in TSI was ten times smaller, the causal effect just went out the window, as Eddy pointed out in the after-dinner talk as a conference in 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/Dec03ScienceMeeting.html

    The fact is that there is very little good evidence of the Sun being a major driver of climate. Lots of wishful thinking [good for funding too] and about 2000 papers claiming this since Riccioli’s in 1651. But that is just like claiming that smoking is healthy because so many people do it.

  149. Leif,

    You said, “The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.”

    When I read about the Maunder Minimum, it states that low sun spot activity was the cause. I think I’m missing an important fact here — are you saying the above that the sun spot activity does not have much impact on our client?

  150. Solen link
    If you are interested in watching the anomalous solar cycle 24 unfold real time, this site provides an interesting summary.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

    As noted in this paper the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly for some unknown reason.

    http://www.solarspots.net/Documenti/teoria_LP.pdf

    As the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots weaken, they are starting to be torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone.

    The resulting sunspot group includes pores (small short lived sunspots) or is composted of only pores. The site above has pictures of each sunspot group which is an overlay of the magnetic anomalies and visual as it is no longer possible to visually see the sunspots as the due to reduction in temperature difference between the sunspot and solar surface.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/livingston-penn_sunspots4.pdf

    At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.

    This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.

    As the papers provided note, based on top of the atmosphere radiation measurement (reflected short wave radiation), direct measurement of cloud cover by radar (Palle’s paper link to above notes the change in the radar data), and by indirect measurement of changes in the earth’s albedo planetary cloud cover abruptly reduced by 1% mid-1994. The reduction in planetary cover is in addition the normal solar cycle modulation of the planetary cover changes in the solar heliosphere that modulate GCR and solar wind bursts that remove cloud forming ions via the mechanism electroscavenging.

    The abrupt and continual reduction in planetary cloud cover is the physical reason why the planet has not cooled due to solar cycle 24 changes.

    Mid-1990s there was an abrupt unexplained change to the north geomagnetic pole movement. For the last 150 years the north geomagnetic pole has moved 10 to 15 km/year in a more or less random pattern. Starting in mid-1990s the north geomagnetic pole movement increased by a factor of 4 to 5 to 50 km/year and is now moving more or less in a straight line towards Siberia. There is of course a physical reason why there was a reduction in planetary cloud cover of 1% and why the north magnetic pole movement suddenly increased by a factor of 4 to 5. The North geomagnetic pole movement is starting to decelerate, again for an unknown reason. When the geomagnetic pole movement returns to 10 to 15 km/year the planet will abruptly cool.
    What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/abstract

    “During the 1990s the NMP drift speed (William: NMP is an abbreviation for North Magnetic pole drift) suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers per year by the decade’s end. This acceleration was all the more surprising given that the NMP drift speed had remained less than 15 kilometers per year over the previous 150 years of observation. Why did NMP drift accelerate in the 1990s?
    Answering this question may require revising a long-held assumption about processes in the core at the origin of fluctuations in the intensity and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field on decadal to secular time scales, and hints at the existence of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic.”

    Comment: The hypothesis of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic is not correct. An observation to support that assertion is that North magnetic pole movement will stop.

    In reply to:
    lsvalgaard says:
    April 11, 2013 at 9:26 am

    Let’s continue our discussion when there is more solar data. It will be interesting to see if Livingston and Penn’s observation that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decay linearly.

    As noted in other threads at this site there is the first signs of observed cooling. The coldest March in 100 years in Europe and the temperature in the high Arctic are colder than the historic mean.

    If the mechanisms noted in the papers linked to above are correct there will be significant unequivocal cooling. The question is not if but when the cooling will occur.

    Obviously if and when there is significant cooling the public will request an explanation and there will be public outrage when there are shown the Greenland ice sheet graph that shows cycles or warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and when they find that is 15 years of research supporting the assertion that sun serially modulates planetary climate and was responsible for 100% of the 1850 to 1920 warming and 75% of the 1920 to 2013 warming.

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf

    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
    Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
    A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
    The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
    Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales, perhaps through changes in ocean thermohaline circulation that in turn amplify the direct effects of smaller variations in solar irradiance.

  151. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2013 at 3:24 am
    The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy:
    “Based on this assumption of an increase in the amplitude of irradiance variations that accompany slower changes in solar activity, about half of the documented rise in global surface temperature in the period from about 1900 to 1940 can be ascribed to solar changes. In the remaining years of the century the fraction falls to about one fourth of the total rise in temperature, with the remainder attributed to ever increasing greenhouse warming. But it must be emphasized, once again, that the larger-amplitude, slower changes in solar irradiance on which these deductions are founded have yet to be observed.”

    And that is precisely the point. In the ten years since Eddy’s paper, the assumption has crumpled and there is no good evidence of these longer periods in TSI. There are even some hints of TSI being higher during grand minima [since there are no dark spots to decrease TSI].

  152. Leif says
    some hints of TSI being higher during grand minima
    henry says
    that is why…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    it is clear to me that current cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
    According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

    I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes…please.

  153. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 10:09 am
    I live in Africa. I say you would not even recognize an elephant if it were right in front of you……
    Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?

  154. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 10:31 am
    I think polar bears are white.
    The skin is actually black for very good reasons [have to do with temperature regulation].
    The bear looks white because is fur consists of almost transparent hair that scatter sunlight [which is white], so the bear looks white, but isn’t. A good example of what happens when you base something on appearance without understanding the physics behind it.
    You are not a racist, as well, are you?
    ‘as well’ what?

  155. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 11:02 am
    “as well” means:”if you do not agree with that”
    ‘Racist’ is a very derogatory term. Are you trying to say that not agreeing with you is just as bad?

    it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern
    Same argument as for believing polar bears are white.

  156. leif says
    ‘Racist’ is a very derogatory term. Are you trying to say that not agreeing with you is just as bad?
    henry says
    no,
    it was you who asked
    “Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?”
    but,
    pray, do tell,
    what has the colour of skin to do with anything whatsoever?

  157. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 11:11 am
    “Polar Bears are my expertise. What is the color of the skin of a polar bear?” but, pray, do tell,
    what has the colour of skin to do with anything whatsoever?

    To show you that appearance can be deceptive. Just because something looks a certain way does not mean that it actually is that way. Just because you see a pattern does not guarantee that the pattern is a physical real entity and will continue in future.

  158. leif says
    Just because you see a pattern does not guarantee that the pattern is a physical real entity and will continue in future.
    henry says
    Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    the best fit seemed to me to be a binomial (correlation coefficient: 0.997!!!)
    When I first saw that curve, I realized that I was looking at degrees C/ t (years) square
    God had thrown me a curved ball. Namely, this indicates to me a natural process. Cooling follows on warming. Thankfully, someone pointed me to the fact that this could also be an a-c curve as the binomial would lead to such an amount of cooling as has not seen before.

  159. henry@leif
    Yes, if you take the last result in the last line in the first table here,

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    the best fit seemed to me to be a binomial (correlation coefficient: 0.997!!!)
    When I first saw that curve, I realized that I was looking at degrees C/ t (years) square
    God had thrown me a curved ball. Namely, this indicates to me a natural process. Cooling follows on warming. Thankfully, someone pointed me to the fact that this could also be an a-c curve as the binomial would lead to such an amount of cooling as has not seen before.

  160. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 11:43 am
    God had thrown me a curved ball.
    Beware of such, they are no good, regardless of which authority throws them. Perhaps upon more reflection you might learn something. It is a common human trait to stop looking once a desired result has been reached.

  161. leif says
    It is a common human trait to stop looking once a desired result has been reached.

    henry says
    if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, or Edison, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness? quite literally, at night, I think!
    Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus. Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory of man made global warming… Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring) facts. Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

  162. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, or Edison, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?
    But you are no Newton or Edison [except perhaps in your own eyes]
    this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen
    Perhaps he is also a Newton or Edison. There seems to be many of those around. WUWT is crawling with them.
    Science is not by consensus.
    It is only science when performed right. Actually, Edison does not qualify. He was a tinkerer.
    Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory of man made global warming
    Sounds like sour grapes to me…

    • Leif says
      Actually, Edison does not qualify. He was a tinkerer.
      Henry says
      well, without him we would all still be crawling around in the darkness,
      at least at night,
      would we not?

  163. HenryP says:
    April 12, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    well before you get that candle lit in the dark,
    you might have to stumble around a bit in the darkness?

    Smart people would light the dark-sucking candle ahead of time. Let others stumble if they want to.

  164. William Astley says:
    April 12, 2013 at 3:24 am
    ..What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/abstract

    Thanks for the effort here, William. Especially the above link. Has the Vuks seen that?

    On the GCR cloud link.. you may be interested in a Japanese study linking the Negative N.pole solar cycles to increased rainfall over Japan. The Negative N. pole solar cycles showing increases in GCR.

    Thanks to Dr. S. and all his efforts tooo!
    The systems are all too messy. Still sorting it all out like a stamp collection?

  165. 1phobosgrunt says:
    April 12, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    ..What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/abstract

    As W. Campbell points out in http://www.leif.org/EOS/2003EOP050008.pdf
    “Readers should be advised that these reported positions are neither magnetic poles nor geophysically important locations. and “the reported vertical dip locations are not important for the knowledgeable scientific activities of today’s world.”

  166. lsvalgaard says:

    April 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    You didn’t see anything significant in this statement?
    ..During the 1990s the NMP drift speed
    suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per
    year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers
    per year by the decade’s end..
    What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/abstract

    Having not read either of the two articles ref’d..
    Was wondering what the current drift speed is and if it is now slowing down again.. and if during this current minimum, (possible quite extended min) if it will continue to slow down?

  167. Also, on another matter during this period of min solar activity, GCR propagation throughout the solar and earth systems.
    Paul Vaughn left this little tidbit on another thread.
    Decadal Variations of Solar Magnetic Field, Heliosphere and the Cosmic Rays, and their Impact on Climate Change
    Hiroko MIYAHARA, Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, The University of Tokyo, Japan

    Not only a good visual for the layman, on GCR propagation through the systems, but also demonstrates the impact of Negative N. Solar pole, on propagation and its impact on rainfall over Japan during negative cycles.
    Good refresher Dr. S. On an already foundation, (tx) the above presentation helps to solidify the info. Might also help to understand that helium focusing cone and other outsiders propagating to the inner system. The HCS angle..but now always in a more flattened status as this cycle remains weak.

  168. 1phobosgrunt says:
    April 13, 2013 at 8:24 am
    You didn’t see anything significant in this statement?
    ..During the 1990s the NMP drift speed suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers

    No, the magnetic field is generated deep in the Earth’s core and is very irregular there with lots of ‘lumps’ and ‘dips’. Since we are 3000 km away almost all of those have died away at the surface [small scale magnetic fields decrease very strongly with distance], leaving basically only the dipole standing with a few dimples here and there. These dimples effectively determine where the field is vertical [the 'poles' on the surface]. With increasing distance up from the surface into the magnetosphere even the dimples go away and the solar wind only sees the dipole. So the interaction between the Sun’s and the Earth’s magnetic field does not care about the moving irregularities of the field. To put is simply: the solar influence cannot ‘see’ the drift.

  169. 1phobosgrunt says:
    April 13, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Not only a good visual for the layman, on GCR propagation through the systems, but also demonstrates the impact of Negative N. Solar pole, on propagation and its impact on rainfall over Japan during negative cycles.
    The variation of GCRs with solar polarity is a very week effect. You can see it here http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png Note that every other minimum shows a sharply peaked flux with the surrounding minima showing a more ’rounded’ variation. The difference behavior is due to the polarity of the Sun. You can see that that difference is of second order only. Although Hiroko is a good friend of mine, I think the connect with rainfall is just coincidental.

    The HCS angle..but now always in a more flattened status as this cycle remains weak.
    The HCS angle right now is what it always is at every solar maximum: about 90 degrees, regardless of how weak the cycle is.

  170. lsvalgaard says:
    April 13, 2013 at 9:29 am
    ..Note that every other minimum shows a sharply peaked flux with the surrounding minima showing a more ’rounded’ variation. The difference behavior is due to the polarity of the Sun…

    ..The HCS angle right now is what it always is at every solar maximum: about 90 degrees, regardless of how weak the cycle is..

    Yes and yes, but the current sheet is flat (not inflated as much as previous cycles by a factor of ?) and will remain under inflated for ? more cycles. The GCR count that is up and coming should be interestinggg.

    Do you happen to know when ESA’s Swarm is supposed to launch. Swarm is replacing Champ. (Champ ret.)
    Meet Swarm
    Research objectives:
    Related to the Earth’s Interior:
    •Map the core flow
    •Determine core dynamics
    •Investigate jerks: their time-space structure
    and recurrence
    •Understand core-mantle coupling and its
    implication for Earth rotation
    •Perform 3D imaging of mantle conductivity
    •Determine remanent and induced
    magnetisation of the lithosphere
    Related to the Earth’s environment:
    •Determine the position and development of
    the radiation belts and their near-Earth
    effects
    •Investigate the time-space structure of the
    magnetospheric and ionospheric current
    systems on all time scales
    •Monitor the solar wind energy input into the
    upper atmosphere and sense its effect on
    the thermospheric density
    •Sound the electron density of the
    ionosphere/plasmasphere and relate it to
    magnetic activity
    Swarm is a constellation to study the
    dynamics of the Earth’s magnetic field and
    its interactions within the Earth System

  171. 1phobosgrunt says:
    April 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    Yes and yes, but the current sheet is flat (not inflated as much as previous cycles by a factor of ?) and will remain under inflated for ? more cycles.
    No, the current sheet is not flat, it has maximum waviness now http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif as in all other cycles at maximum.
    That the tilt angle does not go above 70 degrees is an artifact caused by WSO only measuring an average over latitudes 60-90 degrees. The ‘pixel’ size is 1/11 of the solar diameter: Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf

  172. 1phobosgrunt says:
    April 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm
    Do you happen to know when ESA’s Swarm is supposed to launch.
    On February 13, 2013 the launch was postponed due to “launcher issues”. The new launch date is yet to be determined.

  173. Leif,
    When a compass needle is pointing north, is it attracted to the magnetic north pole or is it aligning itself in the direction of the magnetic field traveling north?

    I’d appreciate your opinion, while (brainstorming!) studying the subject this week, I’ve had a few great ideas, I may need shot-down a peg or two! any help? :)

  174. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    When a compass needle is pointing north, is it attracted to the magnetic north pole or is it aligning itself in the direction of the magnetic field traveling north?
    By convention [in the Western world - the ancient Chinese had the opposite convention], the magnetic pole of the compass needle itself [it has two, one at each end] is pointing north called a ‘north pole’. It points north because it is attracted to a magnetic south pole up north of Canada. So the Northern Magnetic Pole is actually a south pole. That direction is also [defined] as that of the Horizontal part of the Earth’s magnetic field.

  175. Leif,
    That makes sense, thanks for confirming some basics for me. One other obscure question I have for you is; Do dark stars (“Black holes”) in your opinion have a magnetic field?

  176. lsvalgaard says:
    April 16, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    By convention [in the Western world - the ancient Chinese had the opposite convention], the magnetic pole of the compass needle itself [it has two, one at each end] if pointing north is called a ‘north pole’. It points north because it is attracted to a magnetic south pole up north of Canada. So the Northern Magnetic Pole is actually a south pole. That direction is also [defined] as that of the Horizontal part of the Earth’s magnetic field.

    A more accurate description [not dumbed down] would be that the needle, if suspended freely, will align itself with the magnetic field line which will point north and down. The downward angle is called the Inclination. In a compass the downward tilt is prevented by the mounting of the needle so only the horizontal part is felt.

  177. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 5:41 pm
    That makes sense, thanks for confirming some basics for me. One other obscure question I have for you is; Do dark stars (“Black holes”) in your opinion have a magnetic field?
    Black holes have ;no hair’ [i.e. properties other than mass and charge] and so will not have a magnetic field [as really nor charge either - because if it did it would attract opposite charges from its environment]. There may be strong magnetic fields in the gas swirling around the hole, but that is another story. The hole itself has no intrinsic magnetic field [AFAIK].

  178. Leif,

    >…would be that the needle, if suspended freely, will align itself with the magnetic field line which will point north and down.

    It actually does, could that same magnetic field, I wonder, influence the world around it? no no maybe it only attracts needles and mysterious Chinese philosophers! ;)

  179. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 6:11 pm
    could that same magnetic field, I wonder, influence the world around it?
    The magnetic field in itself does not do anything. It, however, determines the interaction with the solar wind and therefore indirectly influences the energy transferred to the [very] upper atmosphere. In [rare] extreme cases that interaction can generate electric currents near the surface that can damage power line transformers and a host of other things.

  180. Leif,

    You’re right, bare in mind the earths magnetic field is separate, (at the moment) from the sun, do you think the suns magnetic field has a rotation?

  181. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    You’re right, bear in mind the earths magnetic field is separate, (at the moment) from the sun, do you think the suns magnetic field has a rotation?
    The Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields are connect at all times. I don’t know what you mean by ‘rotation’. The Sun rotates and so does its magnetic field.

  182. Leif,

    The Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields are connect at all times. I don’t know what you mean by ‘rotation’. The Sun rotates and so does its magnetic field.

    If a magnetic field is attracted to a rotating object; wouldn’t the object produce a rotating magnetic field?

  183. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    If a magnetic field is attracted to a rotating object; wouldn’t the object produce a rotating magnetic field?
    Yes, in a reference system not rotating with the object, but if you were rotating with the object [e.g. sitting in the solar corona or solar wind], the magnetic field would not seem to rotate. I’m not sure why any of this is important.

  184. Leif,

    Wouldn’t a strong rotating magnetic field approaching an object produce more energy on that object than when it was passing it?

  185. Sparks says:
    April 16, 2013 at 9:11 pm
    Wouldn’t a strong rotating magnetic field approaching an object produce more energy on that object than when it was passing it?
    Your question is not precise enough for a meaningful answer. A changing magnetic field in a conductor would produce an electric current that when dissipated would heat the conductor. I’m not sure that is what you have in mind.

  186. Leif,
    “Your question is not precise enough for a meaningful answer. A changing magnetic field in a conductor would produce an electric current that when dissipated would heat the conductor. I’m not sure that is what you have in mind.”

    The line of thought I have on this is related to a planetary object (like earth) approaching and passing through large magnetic fields, as this object approached a large magnetic field wouldn’t activity on the object rise and as the object passed through the magnetic field and traveled away from it, wouldn’t activity on the object fall?

    And if this object approached multiple large magnetic fields concentrated in one area wouldn’t this produce even greater activity on the planetary object? If this object was Earth, wouldn’t this occurrence produce activity capable of introducing a charge that the atmosphere would interact with?

    Also, hypothetically; In your opinion, What would this charge consist of? energetic charged particles?

  187. Sparks says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    planetary object (like earth) approaching and passing through large magnetic fields, as this object approached a large magnetic field
    The magnetic field that the Earth is ‘passing through’ is not large. In fact, it is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s own field [at the surface].

    If this object was Earth, wouldn’t this occurrence produce activity capable of introducing a charge that the atmosphere would interact with?
    As the neutral, but conducting solar wind plasma streams past the Earth’s [strong] magnetic field an electric field is in fact induced. See the text around Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
    This electric field is influential in generating magnetic storms and aurorae.

    Also, hypothetically; In your opinion, What would this charge consist of? energetic charged particles?
    What is generated is not ‘charge’, but an electric field. If there are charged particles around [from the solar wind and also coming from the Earth itself] the particles will move in the direction of the electric field constituting an electric current. That current is the cause of the various effects that are seen. But the particles are not particularly ‘energetic’. The earth does from time to time get a dose of energetic charged particles from the Sun itself, accelerated by electric fields in the solar atmosphere. Such fields results from rapidly changing magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere, but that is another [lengthy] story.

  188. Leif,

    “The magnetic field that the Earth is ‘passing through’ is not large. In fact, it is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s own field [at the surface].”

    I agree with your reply, I was suggesting the possibility of a large magnetic field for the scenario, one not yet discovered?, if a planetary object approached a multiple of these large magnetic fields concentrated in one area wouldn’t this produce even greater activity on the planetary object? When this large magnetic field is not interacting with anything it would be very hard to detect, other than mathematically, Not unlike a “Schwarzschild radius”.
    If this Large magnetic field did exist wouldn’t the physics be plausible?

    “What is generated is not ‘charge’, but an electric field.”
    I was refraining from mentioning an electric field to avoid an obvious misunderstanding.

Comments are closed.